This book goes too far, yet does not go far enough. Keen blasts the Web 2.0 revolution for allegedly destroying the music industry, newspaper journalism, the book-publishing industry and respect for knowledge, talent and hard work. Much of the time, he knows what he is talking about, having worked in Silicon Valley himself. Some of his claims are well-documented and convincing. Illegal and legal file-sharing is indeed destroying the music industry, and now that news is so easy to find on the internet, people are less and less inclined to buy newspapers, let alone advertise in them, which is financially more important. As a result, good and successful bands are finding it hard to get their music published, and the days of professional journalism may be counted. Quite rightly, he challenges these two industries to come up with creative responses to these perils. It seems to me that he exaggerates the threat to the book-publishing industry.
He makes much of the dangers of social networking and search engines that store data to children and the privacy of adults. Fine, but I don't see that that is closely related to the cult of the amateur.
Keen also hates Wikipedia, which he calls unreliable. Here too he has a point, but he fails to admit that an amazing number of articles in Wikipedia are amazingly good and well-balanced. The free encyclopedia is not nearly as bad as he makes it out to be.
My major complaint about Keen's book is that he limits his diatribe against the cult of the amateur to the web. When television and radio could no longer think of new ways of reaching out to their laziest and most stupid audiences, they simply let the audiences run the show. Reality TV! Fortunately, my TV had broken down by the time Big Brother was invented in the Netherlands, so I was spared most of that. But I have suffered as my favourite radio broadcaster, the BBC World Service, increasingly turned its microphones over to its listeners. Vox Populi! I can remember the days when that station would not have stooped to reporting on Tiger Woods's extramarital escapades. But okay, I realise this is the 21st century. And now that most media have embraced the old principle that there's brass in muck, it seems unfair to blame the BBC World Service for dipping in its toe. But who, pray, wants to hear the opinion of an Estonian kindergarten teacher, a Nigerian taxi driver or an Indonesian bank clerk on Tiger's nightly exploits? What a useless and irritating way to fill a radio show.
So all hail to Andrew Keen when he calls for a rehabilitation of the expert. God knows university professors are not right all of the time. But if you wanted to know whether healthy food and exercise will really reduce your risk of getting cancer, would you rather turn to a cancer researcher from a leading university or to the guy who just delivered that XXXL pizza you ordered?
15 February 2010
02 February 2010
The Gucci Theory of Democracy
By Sami Faltas
Dambisa Moyo (www.dambisamoyo.com) is a Zambian economist who used to work for Goldman Sachs and the World Bank. In her book ‘Dead Aid’ she argues that foreign aid is an obstacle to development in Africa. She also says that African countries need a "decisive, benevolent dictator to push through the reforms required to get the economy moving." I am quoting from a review in the Wall Street Journal of 17 March 2009.
The Asian tigers have shown that it is possible to achieve rapid economic growth under authoritarian rule. Some of them, for instance Indonesia, South Korea and Taiwan became democratic at a later stage. China did not. However, democracy and prosperity tend to go together. Most prosperous countries are democracies, and most poor countries are not. Brazil, India and Ireland and several other countries achieved high growth rates under democratic conditions. This suggests that, generally speaking, democracy is neither a requirement nor an obstacle for economic growth.
I will argue that democratic governance is necessary, or at least very helpful, for sustainable development. I believe this applies everywhere, including Africa. But first, let us look at Central Asia.
President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan tells his people: “First the economy, then politics.” He means economic development must come before political reform. I doubt this is the best way forward. Would political freedom and the rule of law not foster the development of an entrepreneurial middle class? Would they not reassure domestic and foreign investors and benefit Kazakhstan’s international stature as a political and business partner? Why wait?
Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution of 2005 has wilted. In an article published on the web site of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Martha Brill Olcott reports that Kyrgyz officials consider democracy a luxury their small and largely impoverished state can no longer afford. She adds: “We must all work to convince them that quite the reverse is true. In fact, the Kyrgyz cannot afford to not be democratic.”
I would like to think that Olcott is right. According to Amartya Sen, democracy has worked remarkably well in his native India. He goes on to say that it has actually held the country together. It could do the same for other fragile countries suffering from ethnic divisions, like Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Most scholars and practitioners consider good governance the key to development. Kofi Annan says: "Good governance and democracy are central to Africa's development. Without them it will be hard, if not impossible, for any African countries to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.” Today, it is generally accepted that the main cause of poverty in Africa is not a shortage of capital, technology, education or roads, but a lack of good governance.
Now the question arises whether good governance necessarily means democratic governance. As we have seen, an authoritarian bureaucracy has the potential to facilitate economic growth and social progress. However, it can also serve as an efficient killing machine. There are no safeguards that it will be used for good rather than evil purposes. I think Annan is right to link development with good governance as well as democracy. In the long run, a capable bureaucracy will be more effective and achieve more lasting results if it operates transparently and accountably under the rule of law. Democratic rule is more likely to facilitate sustainable development than authoritarian rule.
Democracy is not a luxury reserved for countries living in peace and prosperity. It is an effective and flexible form of rule, the best option for any country. Indeed, in the last 20 years, it has spread all over Latin America, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. According to the Polity IV database at the Center for Systemic Peace in the United States, there are now 92 democracies in the world, up from 48 in 1989. Democracy has become the rule, rather than the exception, for functioning states.
I suspect Dambisa Moyo is right when she says foreign aid has often been bad for Africa. But her call for benevolent African dictators is taxi-driver sociology. In the real world, dictators are not benevolent; they are thieves and murderers. Some of them may start out as idealists, but absolute power corrupts them. Anyway, even a nice despot would not be able to push through good governance as described by Kofi Annan, because dictatorship and accountability don’t mix. Finally, democracy is not like a Gucci handbag, a badge of wealth and sophistication. It is a basic need, the form of governance most likely to protect the rights and freedoms of poor, weak and marginalised people. It works in Botswana, Brazil, Ghana and India. Who says it cannot work in Cameroon, Chad and Egypt, as well as Belarus, China and Cuba?
Published in Security Matters, newsletter of the Centre for European Security Studies, issue 22, February 2010
Dambisa Moyo (www.dambisamoyo.com) is a Zambian economist who used to work for Goldman Sachs and the World Bank. In her book ‘Dead Aid’ she argues that foreign aid is an obstacle to development in Africa. She also says that African countries need a "decisive, benevolent dictator to push through the reforms required to get the economy moving." I am quoting from a review in the Wall Street Journal of 17 March 2009.
The Asian tigers have shown that it is possible to achieve rapid economic growth under authoritarian rule. Some of them, for instance Indonesia, South Korea and Taiwan became democratic at a later stage. China did not. However, democracy and prosperity tend to go together. Most prosperous countries are democracies, and most poor countries are not. Brazil, India and Ireland and several other countries achieved high growth rates under democratic conditions. This suggests that, generally speaking, democracy is neither a requirement nor an obstacle for economic growth.
I will argue that democratic governance is necessary, or at least very helpful, for sustainable development. I believe this applies everywhere, including Africa. But first, let us look at Central Asia.
President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan tells his people: “First the economy, then politics.” He means economic development must come before political reform. I doubt this is the best way forward. Would political freedom and the rule of law not foster the development of an entrepreneurial middle class? Would they not reassure domestic and foreign investors and benefit Kazakhstan’s international stature as a political and business partner? Why wait?
Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution of 2005 has wilted. In an article published on the web site of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Martha Brill Olcott reports that Kyrgyz officials consider democracy a luxury their small and largely impoverished state can no longer afford. She adds: “We must all work to convince them that quite the reverse is true. In fact, the Kyrgyz cannot afford to not be democratic.”
I would like to think that Olcott is right. According to Amartya Sen, democracy has worked remarkably well in his native India. He goes on to say that it has actually held the country together. It could do the same for other fragile countries suffering from ethnic divisions, like Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Most scholars and practitioners consider good governance the key to development. Kofi Annan says: "Good governance and democracy are central to Africa's development. Without them it will be hard, if not impossible, for any African countries to reach the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.” Today, it is generally accepted that the main cause of poverty in Africa is not a shortage of capital, technology, education or roads, but a lack of good governance.
Now the question arises whether good governance necessarily means democratic governance. As we have seen, an authoritarian bureaucracy has the potential to facilitate economic growth and social progress. However, it can also serve as an efficient killing machine. There are no safeguards that it will be used for good rather than evil purposes. I think Annan is right to link development with good governance as well as democracy. In the long run, a capable bureaucracy will be more effective and achieve more lasting results if it operates transparently and accountably under the rule of law. Democratic rule is more likely to facilitate sustainable development than authoritarian rule.
Democracy is not a luxury reserved for countries living in peace and prosperity. It is an effective and flexible form of rule, the best option for any country. Indeed, in the last 20 years, it has spread all over Latin America, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. According to the Polity IV database at the Center for Systemic Peace in the United States, there are now 92 democracies in the world, up from 48 in 1989. Democracy has become the rule, rather than the exception, for functioning states.
I suspect Dambisa Moyo is right when she says foreign aid has often been bad for Africa. But her call for benevolent African dictators is taxi-driver sociology. In the real world, dictators are not benevolent; they are thieves and murderers. Some of them may start out as idealists, but absolute power corrupts them. Anyway, even a nice despot would not be able to push through good governance as described by Kofi Annan, because dictatorship and accountability don’t mix. Finally, democracy is not like a Gucci handbag, a badge of wealth and sophistication. It is a basic need, the form of governance most likely to protect the rights and freedoms of poor, weak and marginalised people. It works in Botswana, Brazil, Ghana and India. Who says it cannot work in Cameroon, Chad and Egypt, as well as Belarus, China and Cuba?
Published in Security Matters, newsletter of the Centre for European Security Studies, issue 22, February 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
