Yes on Cincinnati issue 8

Most TDP readers know that Cincinnati will vote on proportional representation (STV/choice voting) in November. This is an historic and crucial reform opportunity.

The Cincinnati Better Ballot Campaign runs a website worth sharing. If someone you know lives in Cincinnati, pass it along.

Zimbabwe power-sharing?

Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and the probable winner he muscled out of a presidential runoff, Morgan Tsvangirai, concluded a power-sharing agreement Tuesday morning. On one hand, we saw this coming. On the other, there are reasons to doubt the “sharing” part.

Last April, it appeared Mugabe was in a bind. He was losing a presidential election, and the South African judiciary was blocking $1.2 million in Chinese guns from entering his repressive arsenal. There were rumors in state news of a “national unity government.” Later on, Botswana’s Seretse Khama led regional rejection of Mugabe’s “win.” The pressure was on from multiple fronts, and the only thing holding Mugabe in place was his ability to maintain the loyalty of the military.

At first glance, this is a Kenya-style solution: invent a prime ministership, inflate cabinet, split the spoils. While the NY Times is light on details and slightly optimistic, Le Monde spells it out:

1. Tsvangirai gets the new title of Prime Minister;
2. Cabinet is now 31 members large;
3. Mugabe gets to name 15 members;
4. Tsvangirai gets to name 13;
5. a “dissident faction” of the opposition, led by Arthur Mutambara, names the remaining 3 members;
6. and Mugabe gets to keep the National Security Council, which covers the army, police and secret service.

The Financial Times disagrees a bit on that last point, nonetheless offering an insightfully sober analysis:

Who controls the security portfolios will be critical to restoration of confidence. It appears that Mr Mugabe will control the army, and Mr Tsvangirai the police and justice ministry. That might work, but all those institutions are currently controlled by Zanu-PF loyalists. They cannot be purged overnight.

It appears that the MDC will get the most important economic jobs in the cabinet, although that could be a poisoned chalice if swift action proves impossible to stabilise the economy and revive the vital farm sector. The task would be daunting for a united government: it could prove overwhelming for one divided by years of intimidation and rivalry.

The important question is whether Mugabe will use the army to repress opposition activity. On that, the Times offers this bit of inconclusive insight:

Talking about the negotiations that led to the agreement, Mr. Mugabe also said there were “lots of things in the agreement that I don’t like, and still don’t like.”

However, he said, “we are all Zimbabweans and is there any other road, any other route to follow? History makes us walk the same route.”

Philly Dem would engineer GOP off city council

From Philadelphia comes more news that proportional representation (and its cousins) isn’t just for progressives and minor parties.

While a coalition of the Cincinnati NAACP and local Republicans backs that city’s return to PR-STV, a Philly Democrat wants to boot the only two Republicans from city council by eliminating two at-large seats elected under limited voting.

Of 17 council seats, 10 are elected in single-member districts. Limited voting (here, two-vote MNTV) helps prevent Democratic electoral majorities from sweeping the remaining seven at-large seats.

The Democratic member’s apparent plan is to reduce district magnitude in the non-majoritarian tier, making it more difficult for the city’s few Republicans to win representation.

Who supports PR in Cincinnati?

This is a very clear discussion of the Cincy PR campaign. It looks like a radio broadcast.

In the battleground state of Ohio, it should be an especially high turnout year. Do you think this coalition can tip the balance?

Former City Councilman Chris Smitherman says he expects Republicans, independents, Libertarians and Greens will vote in favor of proportional representation, because PR could break up Democratic control of the council.

Facing the Democracy/Security Distinction

The conflict in Georgia returns us to the familiar topic of democracy losing out to security considerations. It is argued that Western powers—most especially the United States—lacked the will and means to defend Georgia’s fledgling democracy in its moment of peril.

The debate is not new; in a much different context, Jeane Kirkpatrick famously argued that the Carter administration erred in its focus on “human rights” at the expense of national security.

Does the democracy/security distinction remain appropriate? Robert Kagan does not think so. Kagan contends that the division between democracy promotion and national security has been erased by the shift in foreign policy demanded by the attacks of 9/11.
Read the rest of this entry »