Category Archives: Governance

Travel Ban Aftermath: A Challenge to the Foreign Policy Monopoly?

In case you lived under a rock for the few weeks, the media was dominated by President Trump’s executive order banning citizens from 7 predominantly Muslim countries (Libya, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) from entering into the United States regardless of status. This was followed by an overruling by a Federal district judge in Seattle and the confirmation by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. While opponents of the travel ban celebrated the courts’ decision and move on to other battle lines against the administration, an interesting aberration in government precedent has creaked open that can disrupt the Executive Branch’s long enjoyment of dominating foreign and national security policy.

American foreign policy and national security against foreign threats falls, by and large, under the purview of the executive branch. While Congress certainly has influence on major decision making (i.e. declaring war, finalizing trade agreements, and/or approving funding for major executive decision making), they for the most part act as an oversight committee on foreign policy and leave the direction and day-to-day decision making of American foreign policy and national security to the president. However, even then, that oversight is, by and large, not controlled by major mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution.

The precedent for this lies in a 1936 Supreme Court decision United States v. Curtis-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which largely stands unchallenged since. In a 7-1 ruling, the court explicitly defined which branch of government would by and large dictate foreign policy where it was once vague in the Constitution. Howard Zinn, in his book Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order (p. 62-63), expands on the decision and analyzes it as doing two major things:

It declares that in foreign policy the government is not as limited by the Constitution as in domestic policy; it assigns enormous power to the President in the making of foreign policy…

Zinn then quotes the court’s majority opinion:

‘…The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs…’

And Zinn concludes:

The court spoke of ‘the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.’ And when it adds that this power ‘of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the application provisions of the Constitution[,]’ we must remember that the Court had just declared that in foreign affairs the government was not subject to the restrictions of the Constitution as in domestic affairs!

Since then, that decision has become a defining moment in legal precedent for allowing egregious violations of constitutional rights such as the internment of Japanese-Americans and the seizure of private property and businesses during “times of crisis” and/or war.  Therefore, the drumming up of fear and imminent threat has become the modus operendi of any and all president’s that have desired to push their policy and agenda with minimum legal opposition. In other words, it is like a first step in a Guide to Legally Establish Draconian/Dictatorial Laws in your Democracy flowchart.

As such, it should come to no surprise that the campaign rhetoric and policies coming out of the Trump administration fits the tried and true pattern. They were audacious enough to make such a broad and sweeping executive order. In fact, I would even speculate that they had their bases covered on being allowed to do so legally.

However, this time, with both Washington State and Minnesota suing the federal government on the grounds of economic damage and injury caused by the order in conjunction with an constitutionality argument, Judge Robart broke away from precedent. Judge Robart asked for evidence to support the executive order, which the Federal government could not supply. Instead, the Federal government challenged the authority of the Judicial Branch of the United States in reviewing decisions made by the Executive branch. Judge Robart quickly rebuffed such an argument.

The judge then concluded:

The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches.That’s the work of the legislative and executive branches, while it’s the work of the judiciary to ensure laws and executive orders comport with the Constitution. The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripart government.

While the legal battle over the travel ban specifically is not close to over and will continue to work its way through the legal process up to the Supreme Court, there is a different subtext that can possibly play out where a possible avenue for challenging the Executive Branch’s near monopoly on determining foreign policy and national security can be formed. For the first time in a while, a case is being presented to the court that individual states are able to challenge a near century long precedent in American governance and legal ruling that gives the President sole power to dictate foreign policy. (The irony being that such a challenge started with the Republicans challenging Obama’s executive authority in a previous court case.)
It would be hyperbolic to claim that even the most favorable decision would reign in the President’s ability to dictate foreign policy, but it would creak open the door that was once shackled shut. That small creak could grow wider if individual states leverage the argument of economic damage and injury with evidence of US foreign policy causing direct economic damage that is amplified by globalization. It might be a bit of a long shot and likely would require juxtaposing an unconstitutionality argument, but the fact that a U.S. state is able to successfully sue the Executive Branch on a foreign policy and security decision (though it’s blurred as being also a domestic issue since it deals with immigration) might be able to pave the way of reigning in the monopoly on foreign affairs.
Another interesting detail is the close relationships that businesses and universities from these states (that make up the economic back bone of the state) worked closely with their local government to establish a strong legal case. The companies that overwhelmingly opposed the ban were from industrial sectors that rely on highly skilled and educated individuals, which have an over-represented Asian workforce that are directly affected by the ban (e.g. tech). While issues of diversity in the workforce (even in high-tech) is a problem and should be addressed, it should be noted that this may be an emerging area of influence in dictating policy, especially in booming sectors like tech and engineering that are starting to become more affluent in politics.
These increasing diversity factors (using a high-skill labor lens only, for now) can further solidify that bridge of foreign decision making to domestic repercussion streamline. As such, this may further embolden individual municipalities and states to keep challenging the President’s foreign policy that disrupts constitutional guarantees and could continue to chip away at his ability to roll out his policy.
If he continues to be disruptive, he could not only lose his own ability to establish his foreign policy agenda without aberration, but also for other presidents to come.
Advertisements
Tagged , , , , ,

Israel-Palestine: Throwing Clay Stones at Clouds

So Israel and Palestine are at it. Again. I know this because Facebook told me. Perusing through various hashtags (#standwithIsrael, #prayforPalestine, and various other combinations of “slacktivism“) I came across an article regarding Ahmed al-Jabari, a senior commander of Hamas’ military wing. According to the article, Ahmed al-Jabari received a “draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel [and Hamas], when his car was blasted by the Israeli strike that killed him, Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin told Haaretz.”

That’s not weird. /sarcasm

It turns out that the strike on al-Jabari was the beginning of an Israeli offensive – dubbed Operation Pillar of Cloud – to respond to the escalation of rocket attacks being fired from Gaza into Israel over the last year. Let me repeat that more clearly. Israel killed a Hamas senior official with the potential of brokering a long-term peace treaty, had a draft of said treaty hours before the strike in his hand, and who actually had power to stop rockets being fired into Israel. They did this to…stop Hamas and various other Gazan factions from firing rockets into Israel. Let that logic roll around in the ol’ noodle.

Gershon Baskin – a co-chair of the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information and chief negotiator of the secret back channel negotiations for Gilad Shalit‘s release – wrote a NYTimes Op-Ed piece regarding the assassination:

I believe that Israel made a grave and irresponsible strategic error by deciding to kill Mr. Jabari…Passing messages between the two sides, I was able to learn firsthand that Mr. Jabari wasn’t just interested in a long-term cease-fire; he was also the person responsible for enforcing previous cease-fire understandings brokered by the Egyptian intelligence agency…On the morning that he was killed, Mr. Jabari received a draft proposal for an extended cease-fire with Israel, including mechanisms that would verify intentions and ensure compliance. This draft was agreed upon by me and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, Mr. Hamad, when we met last week in Egypt…

In the draft, which I understand Mr. Jabari saw hours before he was killed, it was proposed that Israeli intelligence information transmitted through the Egyptians would be delivered to Mr. Jabari so that he could take action aimed at preventing an attack against Israel. Mr. Jabari and his forces would have had an opportunity to prove that they were serious when they told Egyptian intelligence officials that they were not interested in escalation. If Mr. Jabari had agreed to the draft, then we could have prevented this new round of violence; if he had refused, then Israel would have likely attacked in much the same way as it is now…

Instead, Mr. Jabari is dead — and with him died the possibility of a long-term cease-fire. Israel may have also compromised the ability of Egyptian intelligence officials to mediate a short-term cease-fire and placed Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt at risk.

This was not inevitable, and cooler heads could have prevailed. Mr. Jabari’s assassination removes one of the more practical actors on the Hamas side.

If that nugget does not blow your mind, here is something “better”: Ahmed al-Jabari – paranoid about his own security – rarely carried a cell phone with him or any other electronic device that was tracable and rarely made public appearances. So how was he found? According to George Joffé, a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, Israel used a combination of technology and informers in order zero-in on al-Jabari’s location. He also opines that it must have been months in the planning, which seems to be the case, especially with the heavy aerial assault that followed, which destroyed strategically important targets. Therefore, if months of planning, following, and intelligence gathering were being consolidated, surely al-Jabari’s secret dealings were also exposed? If they were (which seems to be the case as non-military, non-secret parties were privy to the dealings), wouldn’t Israel have welcomed such negotiations and agreements to take root?

Sadly, the timing, planning, and precision of his assassination, which subsequently launched a full scale escalation by Israel, seems to hint at a different agenda. An agenda that doesn’t fall solely at the footsteps of Israel for it also falls at the footsteps of some strange bedfellows.

Shlomi Eldar, a Gaza news correspondent for the Tel Aviv-based Maariv newspaper, argues al-Jabari’s assassination foreshadows the political discourse of radical groups. He contextualizes Hamas’ political evolution when it took over Gaza by saying:

“Once upon a time, there were the Gaza Hamas and the Damascus Hamas. In the lead at the time was the Damascus Hamas, while the Gaza Hamas was subordinate to the former. The hierarchy was quite clear and the leaders had faces and names. The spiritual, religious Hamas leadership had its headquarters in Gaza. Sheik Ahmed Yassin set the tone then. Everyone knew his place, and each one knew what he had to do. However, Yassin was killed, the Damascus Hamas disintegrated and a leadership vacuum was created, but not for long. In walked Ahmed Jabari. Under his command, the Hamas military wing took over, pushing aside the political wing, something that could not have happened under Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

The chaos in Hamas and the lack of leadership capable of making tough decisions have led to a crisis in the organization. Under these circumstances, in the absence of control, anarchy reigns. It’s every man for himself and each does as he sees fit. Every armed militant is a hero. Every operative launching a Qassam rocket is a king. The Islamic Jihad raises its head and the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) follow suit. These are relatively small organizations; however, the damage they cause is not in proportion to their size.”

Eldar goes on to articulate Hamas’ difficulty in keeping the smaller political groups such as Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in check and dealing with its own political vacuum and restructuring, which made it difficult for Hamas to impose to establish order in Gaza. This came to a head when the Secretary-General of the PRC was assassinated in March 2012, when Hamas’ muted reaction was seen as weakness to the PRC and Islamic Jihad’s “uncompromising ideal for armed struggle against Israel.” Eldar concludes that if Hamas do not re-radicalize, they risk being sidelined to the more radical groups or simply never being able to control Gaza, but:

“Under the current circumstances, disarming the militants and restoring law and order are far more difficult tasks than they were several years ago. And as matters now stand, there does not seem to be anyone in Hamas who can or wants to take such a brave step. There is no strong enough figure in Hamas these days endowed with genuine leadership skills and enjoying the unprecedentedly wide support required to make such a move. There is no one in Hamas today who is ready to pay the price of what is bound to be branded by the other organizations in Gaza as no less than infidelity and betrayal.”

Enter conflict analysis theory. In his book, The Functions of Social Conflict, Lewis Coser argues that in times of weak internal solidarity, despotism rises in order to meet the demand of war or external threat. By facing an external enemy, internal cohesion increases and through the reinforcement of ideals and norms and the purging of deviant ideals and members, control is established over the group. With these axioms in mind, I take Eldar’s conclusions a bit further and argue that certain political factions within Hamas desired to reestablish themselves as the very banner of Palestinian resistance (especially under an Islamic flag). In order to do so, they hung al-Jabari out to dry to purge any remnants of looking soft, gained a martyr in the process, and used al-Jabari’s death as a symbol that Israel has no intention of negotiating by killing Hamas’ chief negotiator between Israel and Gaza.

In other words, Hamas leaked that information intentionally to Israel, and Israel bit. But why would Israel comply in striking such a target and starting a major offensive? It’s argued that it’s an election year in Israel, and Netanyahu wants to show that he will not be idle as Hamas fires rockets into Israel’s south. He had been criticised for being a lame duck, but it seems for political points he has chosen to launch an offensive. However, it still doesn’t explain al-Jabari as a target even if Israel wanted to launch an offensive. His killing has no impact other than putting a halt to a peace treaty, and knowing that may put everything into perspective. Quite frankly, the evidence seems to support that factions at the top of Israel do not want to see this conflict to end for similar reasons as Hamas. They can maintain their stranglehold on power by scaring up votes when their national security is at risk. And so, Israel selectively targets those who are willing to broker a treaty (al-Jabari’s case) or cause harm and pain that will reinforce their enemy to continue to hate them, thus maintaining the cycle.

Hours after al-Jabari was killed, his deputy, Marwan Issa, was appointed as a successor; Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ Prime Minister, has come out and established himself as radical hawk; Fatah has voiced solidarity with Hamas, despite their history (Coser being correct again); it opens up the door for Iran to be courted once again, as Iran has become more closely tied to Islamic Jihad than Hamas in the last year; and Hamas launched a counter-offensive dubbed Operation Stones of Baked Clay, which is a reference to the Surah (105:4), “And He sent against them Flights of Birds, Striking them with stones of baked clay.” All of these things are seemingly advantageous to Hamas’ political future, but simply reinforces and entrenches the conflict for the next generation to inherit. In the end, there’s nothing to be accomplished by throwing clay at clouds…

…and clay washes away when it rains.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why I Will Vote for Obama – A Capitalist Viewpoint

Conducting research is an interesting journey. It can even be an emotional rollercoaster at times. It is fun (at least for me) to see the hypotheses or worldviews I possess in regards to politics, society, etc. is supported by factual evidence. Although, sometimes doing research can completely discredit your beliefs as well. In the case of my last blog post, the journey of doing research uncovered an incorrectly held belief/opinion (once again).

What you saw in the last blog post still remains correct. Both Obama and Romney refuse to address or lower the exorbitant defense budget and they both do not address the giant subsidies the United States pays to special interests, which burns a hole in our national debt. However, my intention when I first wrote the blog was to add a third piece as well. I was going to write that both candidates have not put legislation (or proposed/supported legislation in the case of Romney) into place that addresses the economic fubar that got the entire country into the economic disaster we are currently in. Had I included that into the blog without doing the proper research, I would have been wrong.

The reality is that President Obama did address the horrific wall street practices that brought the United States economy to a near standstill (wiki of Dodd-Frank). In fact, he addressed it emphatically. And, if you’re a capitalist…excuse me…a smart capitalist, you will know how important the passing of this bill was and how important it was in stopping the bleeding of the American economy. If you don’t know, let me break it down:

  1. When Bill Clinton acquired the presidency, he wanted to prove that he was a pro-business Democrat. So his administration began unraveling various government regulation that oversees wall street in the name making it easier for business to do…well…business.
  2. The detrimental piece of legislation that allowed wall street to run wild was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed all derivatives to be unregulated and expressly forbade the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) from regulating it.
    1. What are derivatives? — Wiki here, but the way Lawrence Lessig explains it is easier to understand:
      “Derivatives are assets whose value is derived from something else, where ‘something’ could mean literally anything. I could have a derivative that pays me if the price of gold falls below $1,000 … A derivative is just a bet entered into by two or more parties. The terms of the bet are limited only by the imagination of the parties … Derivatives serve a valuable purpose. As with any contract, [the] aim is to shift risk within a market to someone better able to carry it.
  3. When derivatives became unregulated, there was no oversight to see if whether parties (bankers, investors, hedge funds, etc.) contracted/bound themselves to derivatives so risky that it became detrimental to the overall macroeconomic structure. This is precisely what happened with the mortgage bubble and collapse of 2008 (click the link!!), which subsequently caused financial firms to go under (Lehman Brothers) and caused General Motors to beg the government to bail them out because Wall St. would no longer let them borrow money for their bad business model.
  4. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve during the time financial deregulation was taking place, was flabbergasted that his life-long championing of deregulation and laissez-faire economics would cause such a detrimental financial collapse. In the end, he had to admit he was wrong at a congressional hearing and concede that regulation is a vital piece to an economy.
  5. Sources: Lawrence Lessig’s Republic, Lost (unless I hyperlinked otherwise)

As a result of all this, President Obama championed an overhaul of the deregulated financial sector of the United States and pushed Congress to pass a financial reform bill, which it did with Dodd-Frank. The most important piece to that bill is the Volcker Rule, which keeps banks (or an institution that owns a bank) from amassing too much risk and participating in hedges or derivatives that could be deemed too risky without having adequate insurance or capital to support those risks. It also prevents banks from engaging in investments that are not deemed to be in the interest of its clients (conflict of interest).

Therefore, if you like capitalism…excuse me, intelligent capitalism…you will like the spirit and direction in which President Obama has taken the American economy. This is not to say that Dodd-Frank is adequate. In fact, it’s still far from it, but it does tighten the glaring loophole and puts the economy in the right direction. Candidate Romney on the other hand has threatened to “repeal and replace” Dodd-Frank, which has garnered the attention of financial institutions on Wall Street to pour millions of dollars of into Romney’s campaign. Even the conservative newspaper, The Economist (read: no friend to the Democrats and strongly dislikes Dodd-Frank), find Romney’s economic policies unpallatable. While, I do not agree with certain aspects of the article (which I could delve into in another blog), they seem to come to a similar conclusion as I do to vote for President Obama for a second term:

“As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.”

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Of Deficits and Hurricanes

There’s nothing like a natural disaster to remind us of our (in)famous institutions that snap into action in providing disaster relief–especially in an election year. The blogosphere and web-pundits stormed in (pun intended) on each candidate’s record and positions on disaster relief and found the Romney/Ryan ticket having proposed 80% cuts in disaster relief funding. As online pundits argue over the pros and cons of such cuts, it touches upon one of the centerpieces of the election debate: Excessive spending and what to do about it.

The United States is in a deep hole, $1.1 trillion federal deficit and $16 trillion dollar national debt to be exact, and both president and nominee have different approaches as to how they will close that gap–supposedly (I will get to that later). During the debates President Obama talked about raising taxes for high income households and allowing certain business and household tax cuts to expire in order to close the gap. Mitt Romney’s plan is to cut taxes even further, adding $456 billion hole to the already enormous debt, but has claimed he will make up the lost revenue with “economic growth” and spending cuts. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t quite add up for Romney’s plan. As Bill Gale, from the independent Tax Policy Center, critiques Romney’s debt solution:

“Even if all the available tax expenditures were closed in the most progressive manner possible, it would not raise enough revenue among high-income households to offset the tax cuts they would receive. This was true even when we adjusted the revenue estimates to allow for the impact of potential economic growth, and even when we gave the campaign a trillion-dollar mulligan by ignoring the cost of the corporate tax cuts.

As a result, we concluded that if Romney did not impose new taxes on savings and investments, the only way to finance his tax cut proposals and reach revenue neutrality was to raise taxes on households with income below $200,000.”

This difference excites left-leaning pundits. Some so much so they’re calling it a “New”, New Deal. However, it may be a bit premature, if not totally off-base, to give Obama’s plan such a title. The fact remains, both are unwilling to cut the enormous defense budget and discussion of the bad American subsidy burden policy is non-existent (if you are to click on any one of my links, this is the one you should click on for sure). These two (especially the latter) causes a considerable amount of fiscal waste and only large corporations benefit from the industries these policies support. In fact, according to Lawrence Lessig, author of Republic, Lost, “10% of the recipients of farm subsidies collect 73% of the subsidies.” As a result, small-scale farmers can’t compete with large agriculture corporations because their bottom-line is leveraged far more than a competing small-scale farm. And yet, nobody talks about this.

I am not arguing that subsidies are all bad. Subsidies are an important tool for governments to support a nascent industrial sector so that it can grow and compete in the global market. For example, subsidies for green energy are an important piece of legislation that can help jumpstart a viable green industry sector. The problem becomes when to take the training wheels off. Subsidies artificially lower prices (as already noted in a previous link) and inhibits the free market to push-pull industrial sectors into other areas when they become less viable in one location and more viable in another. As a result, this creates a bubble and wastes an enormous amount of tax payer dollars, which increases the debt/deficit. It’s simply common sense that the oil/fossil fuel industry doesn’t really need subsidies to support their business because it’s already a proven commodity. Yet, we still pump $1 trillion in subsidies globally to get cheap gas and eliminate green energy competition.

At this point, it might seem clear that subsidies have to go, but here lies the conflict. Unfortunately, neither president nor nominee can simply slash subsidies completely tomorrow. There are many businesses, small to large, that are tied up in government subsidies and not allowing them time to transition their business models to seek revenue away from subsidies would cause a whole lot of people to lose their jobs and prices on food and fuel to skyrocket. In essence, it would be like implementing Iranian policies on the United States–not very smart.

The solution would be a long-term plan that must be designed to withstand successive presidents. It would have to be strategic in addressing concerns of rising costs that could be associated with subsidy cuts, which is usually addressed by lowering tariffs for cheaper imports. The money saved by subsidies can be reinvested in burgeoning sectors such as green technologies, high-tech services, and education to create a workforce that can support the demand for such positions.

Such a policy creates jobs, creates the workforce to perform those jobs, and saves the government a lot of money on waste. Cutting subsidy expenditures also allows proposals for tax cuts to actually be feasible by offseting the lost revenue caused by said tax cuts.

Unfortunately, that’s perhaps political suicide for both candidates as their campaigns rely on the contributions of those who benefit from subsidies. In other words, our tax dollars go to companies that pay candidates money to never address this problem. This hits on another issue of campaign finance reform, but that might be addressed in a different blog or you can read Lessig’s book (highly recommended).

In the meantime, we’re left with two politicians that blow harder than Sandy ever could.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Digital Governance

On a june weekend I took part in a class workshop lead by TechChange, an organization that is dedicated to utilizing information and communication technology for positive social change. The workshop familiarized students, including myself, with various technological tools that are currently being used to support various weakened institutions around the world, such as crisis response & management, health response, education, and governance to name a few.

Two technological tools that we got to acquire hands on experience was FrontlineSMS and CrowdMap, which helped facilitate communication and information during election monitoring and medical emergency simulations. The tools utilize SMS (text messaging) – the predominant source of communication in even the most remote and/or underdeveloped regions of the world – and leveraging them to aid in some kind of monitoring or crisis management capacity.

Aside from monitoring tools, new innovative uses of ICT technology are helping to leverage and/or support governance in regions where it has been primarily absent. Tools like FrontlineSMS:Legal and the Internet Bar Organization’s Internet Silk Road Initiative help extend the reach of formal state legal institutions to the remotest of areas. This is particularly useful in places like the remote mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan’s northwest frontier where formal state penetration is limited. When disputes arise, citizens residing in these areas can call or text their dispute to a legal authority connected to this “mlegal” technology, which can help facilitate various legal needs such as discovery, facilitation, or representation just to name a few. Furthermore, these projects can also work with informal justice systems that may have greater legitimacy in a region. In the case of Afghanistan, working with Jirgas can provide greater legitimacy, collaboration, and enforcement on legal decisions made by formal and informal judges and juries.

However, questions do arise on how one monitors and maintains the enforcement of decisions made on legal disputes. In remote regions, monitoring is very difficult and having adequate witnesses may pose a problem in remote locations. In the case of Afghanistan, if state institutions are so remote, enforcement will require greater cooperation from jirgas – a community of tribal elders that specifically addresses disputes in the community. This can pose a problem as jirgas are not monitored and may become privy to dubious dealings. In other words, there is no regulatory system or body to help maintain the jirgas honesty.

Also, the technologies that were supposed to aid and support governance seemed limited to institutions. While institutions are important, they cannot function correctly without having a strong civil society. Aisha Ghaus-Pasha presents an excellent case on the role of civil society and how it promotes “good governance like transparency, effectiveness, openness,
responsiveness, and accountability.” (page 3) Therefore, it would be very interesting to see how technology can aid in the strengthening of civil society and create better relations and cooperation between civil society and formal state institutions.

The overall experience of being part of the TechChange workshop was quite eye-opening. It brought me face-to-face to many technologies that are simply daring to create change. Obviously, technology is not the answer to social woes and the organization makes no case that it does. However, they do argue that technology can certainly help and that it is simply daring to create positive social change as best it can through feedback and trial and error.

Tagged , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: