Pundits talk of black votes as though it is this homogeneous cohort that is up for grab by anybody just like that. Black leaders following Dr. King have essentially done a disservice to their constituent by failing to advocate for mainstream issues such as economic injustice, skewed unemployment, equal opportunity, etc. These leaders for their opportunistic reasons have tended to represent black people only on the fringes: expanding of welfare programs and vigilante policing.
Their motives may in part be because these are trigger issues that assert their prominence in the community, nonetheless, their actions have had a far-reaching effect on status of black people in America. It was no surprising black leaders were not so enthusiastic about candidate Obama in large part because he refused to introduce himself as black presidential candidate. The rift was so pronounced to the extent that the media started writing about obituary of black politics soon after Obama won the election in 2008 with amusing captions such as "Obama victory symbolizes the dead of black politics". If anything, Obama's presidency represents a moment of decency in black politics in America.
Along came the spoiler, Herman Cain, who is quintessential black man compared to President Obama with mixed background and his father hailing from Kenya, interestingly, Mr. Cain speaks more like rich white republican than President Obama does look white. So now we know of one thing: it is not always the color that makes one black/minority in America, it is economic status. The take home from this is that, econemic justice in America is color blind, period.
It was interesting for Herman Cain of all breeds to play the black card when the going got though for him. Thanks goodness no black person in America sided with him. This is indicative of how black politics has come of age in America.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
In Contempt of Democracy
It has been the aspiration of the United nations that all nations across the globe become democratic. What makes democracy more appealing in contrast with dictatorship is its representativeness and the power it gives to the ordinary citizen to affect the affairs of their government. It must be pointed out that anytime this mechanism of representativeness is detached from democracy then we don't have democracy any more, what we have is oligarchy.
Democracy in its purest form is what is referred to as direct democracy as practiced in Ancient Greece. Representative democracy was offered as compromise to the impossibility of direct democracy in ever-growing high population. The idea of representative democracy is for citizens to empower their representatives to make decisions on their behalf. So by default, the people assembly (call it Congress, Parliament, etc) was designed to be embodiment of the true sentiments of the people they represent. Having said this, it must be acknowledged there are varried forms of representative democracy. The US for example takes pride in seperation of powers and checks and balances to minimize concentration of power and undue influences.
Fast forward this to today's realities of Washington politics, what we are witnessing is representative democracy gone wild! Political gridlock and preservation of the so-called Iron Triangle have become the new rule of engagement. Interest group and pay-to-play politics with corporations, big money backers and political expediency have taken the better part of Washington representative democracy. There are some experts who claim gridlock is actually good for America's democracy. I would argue that yes, to some extent, gridlock is good for democracy but as long as the motive behind it is well-intented and more importantly in the interest of the general population. Anything short of this would amount to obstructionism and in fact contempt of representative democracy!
Democracy in its purest form is what is referred to as direct democracy as practiced in Ancient Greece. Representative democracy was offered as compromise to the impossibility of direct democracy in ever-growing high population. The idea of representative democracy is for citizens to empower their representatives to make decisions on their behalf. So by default, the people assembly (call it Congress, Parliament, etc) was designed to be embodiment of the true sentiments of the people they represent. Having said this, it must be acknowledged there are varried forms of representative democracy. The US for example takes pride in seperation of powers and checks and balances to minimize concentration of power and undue influences.
Fast forward this to today's realities of Washington politics, what we are witnessing is representative democracy gone wild! Political gridlock and preservation of the so-called Iron Triangle have become the new rule of engagement. Interest group and pay-to-play politics with corporations, big money backers and political expediency have taken the better part of Washington representative democracy. There are some experts who claim gridlock is actually good for America's democracy. I would argue that yes, to some extent, gridlock is good for democracy but as long as the motive behind it is well-intented and more importantly in the interest of the general population. Anything short of this would amount to obstructionism and in fact contempt of representative democracy!
Thursday, September 15, 2011
African Immigrant: The Unspoken Victims of the Recession (Reloaded)
The US unemployment numbers continue to hover around 9%. Worse still, the fact that zero jobs were created by the US economy this month leads much to be desired. The zero jobs score card may have been a blessing in disgiuse as Washington politicians appear to begin to do something concrete to mitigate the situation.
President Obama was right to posit that the US economic woe is a manmade problem that could be resolved if our leaders put aside short-term partisan/corporate interests and put ahead the interest of the American people. It saddens me to hear the public outcry for lack of leadership in Washington.
Our president has stepped up to the plate repeatedly but he was often greeted by recalcitrant/intransigent Republican-led Congress whose cadinal preoccupation is to make president Obama a one-term president even if it mean sacrificing the economic survival of the American people. Similarly, the president's kind and compromising traits have equally been his own enemy in a sense that hitherto, his common sense/meet-me-half-way approach has rendered most of his policies ineffective and half-measure at best. It seems he has learned his lesson the hard way and he is ready to draw the line in the sand--his decifit reduction speech yesterday signals the new Obama we are going to witness.
As bad as the US economic outlook appears, things are much worse when one takes the trouble to delve into the demographics. Data shows the the distribution of the jobless and foreclosure pain is skewed against American minorities. For example, with national unemployment rate of 9%, the unemployment rate among minorities and age cohort of 25-35 is close to 20%. suffice it to say that if things are so bad for native-born American minorities , what about the foreign-born immigrants?
Surprisingly, no one even talks about how things are shaping up for the immigrants. We have to remember that immigrants are vital component of the American story. The contribution of immigrants to this great nation cannot be gainsaid--for example, 2 in every 5 invention is by an immigrants, not to mention great American immigrants such as Albert Eintein. I challenge our leaders to pay special attention to immigrants who seem to be the most vulnerable among the the group affected by this economic doldrums. We have to keep the American/immigrants dream alive!
to to 2p%
President Obama was right to posit that the US economic woe is a manmade problem that could be resolved if our leaders put aside short-term partisan/corporate interests and put ahead the interest of the American people. It saddens me to hear the public outcry for lack of leadership in Washington.
Our president has stepped up to the plate repeatedly but he was often greeted by recalcitrant/intransigent Republican-led Congress whose cadinal preoccupation is to make president Obama a one-term president even if it mean sacrificing the economic survival of the American people. Similarly, the president's kind and compromising traits have equally been his own enemy in a sense that hitherto, his common sense/meet-me-half-way approach has rendered most of his policies ineffective and half-measure at best. It seems he has learned his lesson the hard way and he is ready to draw the line in the sand--his decifit reduction speech yesterday signals the new Obama we are going to witness.
As bad as the US economic outlook appears, things are much worse when one takes the trouble to delve into the demographics. Data shows the the distribution of the jobless and foreclosure pain is skewed against American minorities. For example, with national unemployment rate of 9%, the unemployment rate among minorities and age cohort of 25-35 is close to 20%. suffice it to say that if things are so bad for native-born American minorities , what about the foreign-born immigrants?
Surprisingly, no one even talks about how things are shaping up for the immigrants. We have to remember that immigrants are vital component of the American story. The contribution of immigrants to this great nation cannot be gainsaid--for example, 2 in every 5 invention is by an immigrants, not to mention great American immigrants such as Albert Eintein. I challenge our leaders to pay special attention to immigrants who seem to be the most vulnerable among the the group affected by this economic doldrums. We have to keep the American/immigrants dream alive!
to to 2p%
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Is African Union on wrong side of history on Libya?
Libyan rebels advance into Tripoli for the most part came as a surprise to the World. Gaddafi's spin machine was at its best in scaring the hell out of the rebels of the dreadful encounter awaiting them in Tripoli. However, thanks to the braveheart of the rebels and good judgement of residents of Tripoli, the encounter was more or less a drive-through.
Now pondits, Libyan Transitional National Government and other policy makers are debating post-Gaddafi' Libya.
One conspicuous missing link though is the voice of the African Union in all of this. South Africa for example has not been particularly thrilled by the turn of events over the last few days. They actually moved to block a vote at the UN enabling the Libyan TNC funds to settle in.
Much as we all abhor the west meddling in internal African affairs, we have to understand that the Libyan experience is what can be considered blueprint for such operations. Gaddafi is a mad dog who has oppressed his own people for over 42 years, period.
It is about time African Union tilt to the right side of history and support their brothers and sisters in Libya.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Can migration be a positive- sum game for Africa?
The last two decades have witnessed mass emigration of young talents from Africa and other developing countries en route to the North. Experts are quick to point to brain drain (as it is labeled) as one of the factors impeding progress in developing countries. Africa is said to have lost a great deal of its highly skilled talents particularly in the medical field as a result of brain drain.
Critics of brain drain tend to take aim at both the migrants as well as their host nations for enticing and syphoning the best human resources from poor countries who need these talents the most. In truth, Africa has fallen victim to loss of qualified medical doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, and recent university graduates to countries like the United Kingdom, U.S. and the like.
The effect of this vacuum has been amply documented and much talked about.
ome hospitals for example are without qualified doctors and nurses to take care of patients. What I beg to differ is the long term impact brain drain can have on these countries at the receiving end.
Financial returns (running into billions of dollars) in terms of remittances have gone a long way to cushion these economies at a time when donor countries are cutting back thier commitment to Africa. If properly managed, this can go a long way to circumvent any short-term loss due to brain drain.
Another positive impact of brain drain is the skill set these immigrants bring back to thier countries down the road. the reality of this debate is that most of these professionals return later on in thier lives. They often bring to bear their rich experience from their host countries. Most returnees are making a big difference in the medical, education,political and other sectors of the African economy.
In effect, my sense is that, brain drain may not be all that bad.
Critics of brain drain tend to take aim at both the migrants as well as their host nations for enticing and syphoning the best human resources from poor countries who need these talents the most. In truth, Africa has fallen victim to loss of qualified medical doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, and recent university graduates to countries like the United Kingdom, U.S. and the like.
The effect of this vacuum has been amply documented and much talked about.
ome hospitals for example are without qualified doctors and nurses to take care of patients. What I beg to differ is the long term impact brain drain can have on these countries at the receiving end.
Financial returns (running into billions of dollars) in terms of remittances have gone a long way to cushion these economies at a time when donor countries are cutting back thier commitment to Africa. If properly managed, this can go a long way to circumvent any short-term loss due to brain drain.
Another positive impact of brain drain is the skill set these immigrants bring back to thier countries down the road. the reality of this debate is that most of these professionals return later on in thier lives. They often bring to bear their rich experience from their host countries. Most returnees are making a big difference in the medical, education,political and other sectors of the African economy.
In effect, my sense is that, brain drain may not be all that bad.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
African Immigrant: Is Good Politics Bad Economics?
African Immigrant: Is Good Politics Bad Economics?: "One would think politics and economics go hand in hand or better still complement each other--afterall, economics was born out of politics a..."
Is Good Politics Bad Economics?
One would think politics and economics go hand in hand or better still complement each other--afterall, economics was born out of politics and it is politicians who implement economic models. However, politics and economics in today terms are set against each other as if they are mutually exclusive.
If you follow the US political debate, you would clearly notice how politics and economics have been striped of their scientific orientation and have now become mere subjective disciplines depending on whose interest it is serving.
It is amazing to listen to the Republicans sheepishly advocating for supply-side stimulus i.e low tax rate for the rich contrary to what their own conservative economists are prescribing--this is clearly not motivated by economics but a political move to please their rich base. In negociating the debt ceiling, the Republicans have indicated they are not interested in the economic welfare of the country, they are only interested in making their rich clientele happy--they have made it clear that tax increase of any kind is off the table but cutting entitlement such as social security and medicare is the way forward.
It is a commonplace in today's democracy to see the opposition incentivised to sabotage the incumbent's economic policies to enable it to take over power--in doing so, innocent citizens get hurt economically and the country loses its pride and stature. This is pointedly not the way democracy was made to function--opposition captures power by dint of presenting credible alternative to the incumbent's policy.
If the advanced democracies are such murky, one can only imagine how it is playing out in Africa--there are reports that in Ghana, government officials are altering vital statistical information to make the incumbent look good.
Politicians should stop manipulating economics for their short-sighted goals.
If you follow the US political debate, you would clearly notice how politics and economics have been striped of their scientific orientation and have now become mere subjective disciplines depending on whose interest it is serving.
It is amazing to listen to the Republicans sheepishly advocating for supply-side stimulus i.e low tax rate for the rich contrary to what their own conservative economists are prescribing--this is clearly not motivated by economics but a political move to please their rich base. In negociating the debt ceiling, the Republicans have indicated they are not interested in the economic welfare of the country, they are only interested in making their rich clientele happy--they have made it clear that tax increase of any kind is off the table but cutting entitlement such as social security and medicare is the way forward.
It is a commonplace in today's democracy to see the opposition incentivised to sabotage the incumbent's economic policies to enable it to take over power--in doing so, innocent citizens get hurt economically and the country loses its pride and stature. This is pointedly not the way democracy was made to function--opposition captures power by dint of presenting credible alternative to the incumbent's policy.
If the advanced democracies are such murky, one can only imagine how it is playing out in Africa--there are reports that in Ghana, government officials are altering vital statistical information to make the incumbent look good.
Politicians should stop manipulating economics for their short-sighted goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)