Gloomy US intelligence assessment coming or Let's hear from the spies

[Bob's World]

I make an issue of it because I believe that the focus on "The Constitution" or "the Government" raises a very dangerous possibility. If that's presented as the problem, some less than bright person somewhere is going to have the wonderful idea that all we have to do to solve the problem is to fix the Government or change the Constitution, and that's just going to start the cycle of mess and intervention all over.

Far better, I think, to focus on what you described like this:



Our people need to understand that the obstacle is not a government or a document, but the existing cultural reality, something that is not going to change because we put someone new on the chair or change Constitutions. Understanding that provides a badly needed perspective: people who might be tempted to try and "fix" a government or a Constitution might think twice - or one hopes more than that - about trying to "fix" a culture.

This is the balancing that I am attempting to get at with an idea I am calling "exploitable gaps." Essentially that any form of government can be stable if it is in synch, along a handful of critical measures, with the populace it serves. When the government is out of synch a "gap" emerges that is then easily exploitable by internal and external actors alike who may come along with any range of agendas and purposes. The key to success being to get the government to move to being in line with their populace.

Efforts to preserve the status quo of governance where such a gap occurs, and to help that government "control the populace" and drag them back into submission can only suppress the problem, and likely broaden the gap.

Equally, efforts to over-westernize/liberalize some government may very well drag a government that had previously been in synch with its populace out of that zone and create a gap where none previously existed. US calls for "democracy" and "universal US values" are both powerful examples of well -intended concepts (make others more like us and they will be less likely to oppose us) that are potentially extremely dangerous when one applies this deeper understanding of insurgency. Such radical reforms based upon externally determined answers as to what "right" looks like could also take a government that is out of synch in one direction, and move it past the populace even farther in the other direction. (Example, the Syrian and Iranian governments are clearly two that are out of synch with their populaces. The US has no clue what those populaces want, need, or expect of their governance. Our message should simply be "listen to your people, not to us, and get in synch with their expectations of you, not ours." I suspect that governments and populaces everywhere would find that a refreshing change of rhetoric for the US and might point out to us that "you sound more like America and less hypocritical of your own professed principles now.")

Like a boss once used to always remind us, "target audience, target audience, target audience." Governments are bureaucratic and slow to reform. Populaces are in a period of relatively rapid reform. Governments are getting out of synch. They are unlikely to find stability by mirroring the US in deed, but rather in spirit; by seeking to better understand their own populace and to create a system consistent with their culture that allows them to stay better aligned and to build a sense of confidence in the populace that they retain the degree of legal control over government that makes sense to them.

(oh, and I should have attached this with the previous post - warning a couple of F-bombs get dropped)

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...st=0&FORM=LKVR

[Dayuhan]

any form of government can be stable if it is in synch, along a handful of critical measures, with the populace it serves. When the government is out of synch a "gap" emerges that is then easily exploitable by internal and external actors alike who may come along with any range of agendas and purposes. The key to success being to get the government to move to being in line with their populace.

I think this overlooks a major problem: it's not just about the government being "in synch with the populace", it's also about the various portions of the populace being in synch with each other and having even marginally compatible ideas about how they want to be governed. If multiple factions of the populace are at each others throats, and if their idea of "good governance" is "we rule and you get your asses kicked", it's not likely that any form of government will bring stability.

Government cannot be more stable than the society it governs. As M-A points out, government is not somehow above and apart from the population: it reflects the divisions and conflicts inherent in the nation.

[Bob's World]

no argument. This goes to the fundamental duty of sovereignty: "To protect the populace."

This means that it must protect diverse segments from each other, from external as well as internal threats; and from the government itself. Protection goes beyond the phyical, but also to the economic, social, etc. I see this all as part of "getting in synch with the populace. If one segment is favored over another, or if one is allowed to abuse another, then that government is "out of synch." Those are the points of friction, like rumble strips on the highway, that should wake government up to the fact they are drifting off course and need to update their game. (I.e., its not the ditch's fault when you drive into it.)

Or where you are, its not the rice paddy's fault. (that is some crazy driving in N. Luzon, particularly when the farmers are using long stretches of the road to dry their rice). Raising the point, I guess, that some places are more challenging for governments than others.

[Dayuhan]

This means that it must protect diverse segments from each other, from external as well as internal threats; and from the government itself. Protection goes beyond the phyical, but also to the economic, social, etc. I see this all as part of "getting in synch with the populace. If one segment is favored over another, or if one is allowed to abuse another, then that government is "out of synch."

If there are multiple segments of the populace and each believes that it should be favored over the others, not favoring one over the other will put you out of synch with all the segments.

Again, it must be stressed that Government is not above or apart from the society. Whatever divisions and conflicts exist in the society will be reflected in the Government. If those divisions and conflicts are at a point where there is no trust or consensus on even the most basic ideas of how the society is to be governed, Government is not going to be able to come up with some deus ex machina reconciliation and impose it on all factions.

(that is some crazy driving in N. Luzon, particularly when the farmers are using long stretches of the road to dry their rice).

The rice on the road stuff is no big deal once you're used to it. Up here in the mountains crazy driving looks like this...



And for perspective...



The little spot in the upper right corner is the bus.

[Bob's World]

(now is where I would make my pitch that a well crafted constitution creates the framework that allows those diverse segments of the populace to learn to trust in each other over time; and that also allows them to learn to trust in their government over time as well)

Those pics look like the road to my dad's house in SW Oregon, and the ones I roamed and worked growing up. That I can deal with. A quarter mile thunder run down a single lane of elevated two-lane roadbed with no shoulders, surrounded by rice paddies and one lane covered in a farmer's crop, while someone else is making the same decision from the other side was new for me.

[Dayuhan]

(now is where I would make my pitch that a well crafted constitution creates the framework that allows those diverse segments of the populace to learn to trust in each other over time; and that also allows them to learn to trust in their government over time as well)

Again, the weakness is that the Constitution has to be crafted by those same diverse segments, and if the divergence is very large, there's little trust, and the definitions of what sort of governance is "good" are far enough apart, it's not likely that they're going to be able to craft a Constitution that can keep things together. It takes some trust and a rough level of consensus to build a system that promotes reconciliation.

It needs to be remembered that in itself a Constitution is just a piece of paper with words on it. What makes it more than that is the belief in what those words say and the agreement among the contending factions that they will abide by what's said. Without the belief and the consensus, there's nothing there that means anything.

A quarter mile thunder run down a single lane of elevated two-lane roadbed with no shoulders, surrounded by rice paddies and one lane covered in a farmer's crop, while someone else is making the same decision from the other side was new for me.

Ah, but there's a system. Actually several systems. One is that the guy whose driving side of the road is open has the right of way, and the other guy drives up on the rice, avoiding whatever obstacles the farmer has put out to avoid having people drive on the rice. Another is that whoever has the bigger vehicle has the right of way. Another is that whoever has the more expensive vehicle has the right of way. Another is that whoever flashes his lights, leans on the horn, and hits the accelerator first has the right of way. It's kind of a rule-free negotiation conducted at speed on a collision course.

Somebody always gets pushed out of the way, and some rice always gets crushed... or there's a crash and everybody gets messed up. There's probably some sort of metaphor there for governing societies where different factions have incompatible expectations.

[Dayuhan]

(now is where I would make my pitch that a well crafted constitution creates the framework that allows those diverse segments of the populace to learn to trust in each other over time; and that also allows them to learn to trust in their government over time as well)

Slightly OT, but this article might interest you:

http://tinyurl.com/bumtjp8

Foreign Affairs on "Writing Constitutions in the Wake of the Arab Spring"

[Bob's World]

Slightly OT, but this article might interest you:

http://tinyurl.com/bumtjp8

Foreign Affairs on "Writing Constitutions in the Wake of the Arab Spring"

1. Those of the group currently holding power acting to preserve that power; and

2. Western "do-gooders" who come in convinced that specific degrees of certain values, or that specific forms of government are the only right answer and work to force them into the document or to criticize a document that lacks them. (whatever happened to broad principles and self-determination?)

You see both at work in this quote from the article:

"That intention became clearer in mid-November, when the Supreme Council released a set of draft constitutional provisions that would give the military immunity from civilian supervision and empower the armed forces power to approve legislation proposed by the parliament. This went well beyond the "Turkish model" -- parliamentary sovereignty limited by military oversight -- that has been widely suggested, and precipitated a crisis in the military's relations with the civilian population and a new round of protests.

The constitution that emerges over the next year will likely lay out a parliamentary system. It will be influenced by Islamic ideas but will be characterized by the need for the dominant parties to form coalitions if they are to govern. It is unlikely, and probably undesirable, that a single party will be able to secure a simple majority in the parliament. This should lead to some compromise and moderation among the most extreme parties. But while certain human rights will be codified in the new code, the parties might be forced to focus on the political status of the civilian government and religious rights. The future status of Egyptian women is thus cause for concern. The Supreme Council already set aside some Constituent Assembly seats for women, but gender is not listed in the declaration's provisions banning discrimination. Women were also excluded from the preparations for the recent elections."

As I recall women's rights are not addressed in our base constitution either. Our nation had to evolve to a point where such an addition made sense. I'll need to think on this a bit, but I suspect I can come up with 5-10 guidelines for crafting a constitution for best COIN effect over time.

The bottom line must be one of shared trust. That when one has lost all faith in politicians, one can still trust in their government. That government is a system, and a good constitution lays out a good system. People come and go, some good, some bad, but a good or bad system is a gift that keeps on giving, producing good or bad fruit depending on it's nature.

There is much "bad fruit" laying about in Afghanistan. It is time we focused on the tree it drops from and better understand the roots that nurtured and gave rise to the same. We have a heavy hand in that, and our well-intended, insurgency-ignorant, advisors to that process were manipulated artfully by the Northern Alliance to serve their selfish interests.

We show no signs of learning this lesson, so undoubtedly will repeat our mistakes in places like Egypt, Libya, etc, etc, etc.

[Dayuhan]

We show no signs of learning this lesson, so undoubtedly will repeat our mistakes in places like Egypt, Libya, etc, etc, etc.

If we've any common sense at all, we won't make any mistakes in the writing of Constitutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, because we won't be involved in the process in any way. Mistakes will surely be made, but they'll be their mistakes, which is as it should be.

I can't see how the US or any American should have any involvement at all in writing a Constitution or structuring a government for Egypt, Tunisia, Libya... or Afghanistan.