|
Corruption is everywhere. According to Transparency International's 2018 Corruption Perception Index report, about two-thirds of countries in the world have very high levels of corruption. Democratic elections are supposed to be a means of granting citizens the voice to penalize corrupt leaders that are benefiting at the expense of the electorate. However, from my experience in my home country, Zimbabwe, and the results in many other developing countries, elections are frequently failing to hold leaders accountable. Elections strengthen dictatorial rule and further corruption by the ruling party under the guise of legitimized support by the voters. The failure to control corruption and lack of transparent administration of elections are a growing threat to democracy. Allegations of election fraud are a common feature of the electoral cycle for most African elections. International observers swarm a country in an attempt to ensure that the incumbent government administers free and fair elections. However, this monitoring does not seem to be a significant deterrent for election fraud given how frequently opposition leaders call elections into question. Just this past month, the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Nigeria were initially postponed, raising concerns of corruption and rigging. Election fraud manifests itself across the world in different ways. Several African leaders in power have been accused of employing some of the following tactics to maintain power:
Media as a WeaponIn many countries, media has become a tool for creating more profound polarization around election time. With the rise of the term “fake news,” media is viewed as a less objective source of information for voters. While social media has become a great symbol of democratic expression, these outlets have also been utilized to foster electoral violence and perpetuate propaganda. In developing countries where digitalization is still growing, the government has significant power over the media such that most of the news and advertisements often have a substantial skew in favor of incumbent leaders. The governments in many developing countries also have considerable abilities to censor online communications, as is claimed to have been the primary issue with the Cambodian election last year. Massive crackdowns on social media platforms like WhatsApp have been a key strategy used by incumbent parties to control information disseminated among citizens in developing countries.  Photo by Elliott Stallion on Unsplash. Violence as a NormThe Nigerian opposition leader, Atiku Abubakar, who denounced the results of the February 23rd election, cited violence as one of the reasons he deemed the electoral process to have been illegitimate. In many elections, opposition leaders and their supporters are suppressed violently through jailing, torture, and even killings allegedly perpetrated by the ruling party. Election sabotage strategies like these lead to unequal public campaign opportunities. When voters’ confidence in the electoral process is undermined, this either leads to violence or voter apathy. In Africa, where youth unemployment is rampant, it is worth noting that politicians often take full advantage of the frustrations of young voters to incite violence. Violence can also be perpetrated by government military forces whose more prominent presence during electoral periods is used more as an intimidation tactic rather than for the protection of citizens. Over the past year, military involvement was a key theme of the elections in Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Madagascar, and the DRC. Malawi, which is set to have its elections in May, has already begun experiencing violence. The Courts are not a Place for RefugeWhen there is an election dispute, most countries have legal processes in place that is meant to provide an impartial judgment on the validity of the results. Nigeria's Abubakar has chosen to take his complaint to the courts. Several other elections have ended in a similar fashion, but it is unclear whether there are sufficient checks and balances between the courts and the ruling government in most developing countries to grant due process to the candidates contesting the results. The Kenyan court's decision to force a rerun election in 2017 was one of the only recent occasions when a court has ruled against an incumbent president. Even when election observers highlight apparent election irregularities, such international pressures have not stopped inauguration ceremonies from continuing, as was the case in Zimbabwe last year and in the DRC this January. Instead, opposition leaders and their supporters are more likely to be prosecuted during or after the electoral cycle. The perpetuation of such treatment undermines democratic civic participation and may even reduce the number of individuals willing to challenge incumbents. Meanwhile, ruling leaders get away with their use of power to bend constitutional laws in their favor in future elections. The Slow Death of Democracy The problems with election fraud have not only affected developing countries. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has received his share of allegations due to the questionable involvement of Russia in the 2016 election. State and local elections in the United States have also been scrutinized primarily for voter suppression. Gerrymandering, or the redrawing of district borders in favor of the incumbent party’s voter interests, is a frequent topic of conversation around election fraud in the United States. While institutional corruption and election fraud issues may not affect the US state and federal elections in the same detrimental manner as it does in African elections, such negative trends in electoral accountability are likely to continue raising questions about the legitimacy of democratic electoral systems. It is essential for countries to make more significant efforts to strengthen governance by implementing reforms that improve the role of legal and political systems in ensuring the legitimacy of elections. Failure to come up with innovative solutions to prevent electoral fraud will continue to cause the loss of faith in elections and to threaten the future of democracy, especially in developing nations. Tatenda Mabikacheche
The views expressed above are solely the author's and are not endorsed by the Virginia Policy Review, The Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, or the University of Virginia. Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged in its activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization’s contracts, acts, or omissions.
0 Comments
Nicolás Maduro is an illegitimate president. He retained office through a sham election and has abused his powers in the process of creating a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. Leaders across the political spectrum in the United States and beyond have recognized Juan Guaidó as the true president of the nation in chaos. One of the leaders recognizing Guaidó is President Donald Trump. President Trump and his administration have been consistent and forceful on the situation in Venezuela. Even before European countries sided with Guaidó, Vice President Pence delivered a message of support to the Venezuelan people, promising that the United States would stand with them “until Democracy is restored” and their “birthright of Libertad” is reclaimed. The Administration has taken a stand on the right side of history, choosing the oppressed over the autocrat, precious freedom over brutal tyranny. For an administration that has been resoundingly criticized for a number of foreign policy missteps, Venezuela seems like an exception. The Trump Administration’s course of action has been the correct one. So, how worthy are they of our praise? The answer is complicated, but the reality is clear: if you are only concerned about human rights when it is politically expedient, then you aren’t actually concerned about human rights.  Photo by Andrés Gerlotti on Unsplash. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the dismembering of a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and a war in Yemen that has killed so many innocent people that the United Nations can no longer keep an accurate count. However, President Trump has defended the Crown Prince at every turn. Vladimir Putin has his political opponents imprisoned and killed, denies basic rights to minorities, and props up the Assad regime in Syria that gassed its own people. However, President Trump heaps praise on Putin and sides with him over the U.S. intelligence community. In North Korea, Kim Jong Un tortures, murders, and starves his own people, yet President Trump has said he and Kim “fell in love.” In short, President Trump does not care about human rights. His narrow focus on putting “America First” is a misguided mentality that reflects a misunderstanding about foreign policy. In his final book, The Restless Wave, John McCain wrote: "Human rights advocacy isn’t naive idealism. It’s the truest kind of realism. Statesmen who think that all that really matters in international relations is how governments treat each other are wrong. The character of states can’t be separated from their conduct in the world. Governments that protect the rights of their citizens are more likely to play a peaceful, constructive role in world affairs. Governments that are unjust, that cheat, lie, steal, and use violence against their own people are more likely to do the same to other nations." The universal application of a human rights framework to world affairs is not only morally just, it also advances the cause of American security. There is no American interest more sacred than defending our founding idea, that all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. President Trump has done that in Venezuela. Now, the administration must stand up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, and everywhere else that freedom is threatened, now and always. Jack DiMatteo
The views expressed above are solely the author's and are not endorsed by the Virginia Policy Review, The Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, or the University of Virginia. Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged in its activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization’s contracts, acts, or omissions.
Ensuring American Competitiveness in a 21st Century Economy: Solar Panel & Washing Machine Tariffs9/24/2018 American solar panel and washing machine manufacturers struggle to compete with imports from China and developing countries. In January of this year, the Trump Administration enacted tariffs on imported solar panels, washing machines, and washing machine parts to protect American industries. These tariffs include a 30 percent tax on imported solar panels in the first year and a gradual decline to 15 percent by the fourth year. The first 1.2 million annual units of washing machines experience a 20 percent tariff and 50 percent thereafter. Washing machine parts have a flat 50 percent tariff. So why enact these tariffs? The Chinese solar panel industry has dominated the last decade of international trade, expanding from seven percent of global market share in 2005 to 61 percent in 2012. China achieved this by providing tax credits, utilizing a cheap labor advantage, investing as much as $47 billion in infrastructure to overcome barriers to entry, and other subsidies. China became the largest market for solar panels, and US companies like First Solar and Sun Power saw their stock values drop to 13 percent and six percent, respectively, of their former stock values. So we know that American industries struggle to compete as a result of this, but is this the Trump Administration’s only option? The federal government can impose tariffs and/or quotas, subsidize and invest in its domestic market, or take China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) under a dispute settlement. In fact, the literature shows that the effectiveness of tariffs can be mixed. Blonigen, Liebman, Pierce, & Wilson (2013) found that counter-veiling duties (tariffs) do not appear to change overall market share in a domestic market. Additionally, small steel mills were moderately harmed by tariffs, while large mills did not appear to have any evidence of an effect. These same findings also saw a strong and positive effect for quotas as a form of protecting or strengthening domestic market share. However, research on the reduction of tariffs in 1989-1999 and 1996-2006 showed that increased trade from tariff reduction was fairly small; for every percentage point drop in tariff rates, the probability of import increases only raised by 1.1 percent. These reductions in tariffs only accounted for five percent and 12 percent of the increased imports, respective to the two time periods (Debaere & Mostashari 2010). This means that tariffs must be large, such as 50 percent, to be effective. The other two major options are not clear favorites either. China’s subsidies were highly effective but expensive. Zhang & He (2013) state that energy produced was subsidized at 50 percent, and the costs of this will likely expand far in advance of the $47 billion China spent per year for factory development. WTO dispute settlements are another common method to address trade practices perceived as unfair. China cannot have export subsidies as a WTO member, only subsidies to build its domestic market (U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2006). As we know from Zhang & He (2013), 90 to 95 percent of Chinese solar panels were exported in the late 2000s. Therefore, arguing that these subsidies are for a domestic market are clearly misleading. Furthermore, the US was successful in curtailing Japanese trade policies through WTO disputes despite losing cases (U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2006). This all goes to show that the Administration clearly has more than one tool to approach this problem, but which should they use? Any decision should be viewed along the following lines: cost to the government and private industry, the net effect on US market share and jobs, domestic political feasibility, and the effect on US trade relations. Policy Option 1: Tariffs, Quotas, and the Expansion of the Trade War Tariffs, quotas, and expansion of the trade war is one answer. As cited above by Debaere & Mostashari (2010), tariffs in the scope of 30 to 50 percent can be effective measures at protecting US industries in the long run. Pierce & Schott (2014) found that one quarter of manufacturing sector losses were caused by lowering tariffs, subsidies, and other barriers against developing countries like China. Therefore, a move back to these policies could swing the pendulum back in favor of the American manufacturer. Quotas also have a strong and positive effect on domestic markets (Blonigen, Liebman, Pierce, & Wilson 2013). The US government would likely incur no costs from this and would likely increase revenue from tariffs. The solar industry alone is worth tens of billions of dollars, after all. However, the existing literature on this topic questions the effectiveness of this policy. Cited above, Blonigen, Liebman, Pierce, & Wilson (2013) found that there is none to a negative effect of tariffs on the solvency of the local steel industry. This study, reviewing fifty years of economic data, shows that a similar sector in the manufacturing industry was harmed by this policy. When George W. Bush attempted an 8 to 30 percent tariff on foreign steel, the WTO stopped him before the effects could be felt (Blonigen, Liebman, Pierce, & Wilson 2013). A policy that may be stopped cannot be effective, though this outcome is uncertain. Politically, this option is very viable. The President has relatively broad abilities to enact tariffs: he can use the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 to levy tariffs on any country during a war, he can declare manufacturing losses a ‘national emergency’ and use it to levy tariffs, he can use the Trade Act of 1974 to enact temporary modest global tariffs, or he can use the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact industry tariffs as high as he desires. With a Republican Congress and some Democrats being in favor of protectionist policies, this could even be made permanent. Retribution from trade partners and the WTO is one drawback of this option. While the WTO can stop tariffs in a dispute settlement, retaliatory tariffs are also possible. This can be seen following the recently enacted steel tariffs, related to which the European Union is considering a 25 percent tariff as retaliation for US steel tariffs. Quotas would likely provoke a similar response. Therefore, the negative effects of US trade relations are high.  Policy Option 2: Subsides, Tax Credits, and Infrastructure Spending This option involves subsidies for US washing machines and solar panel companies, significant infrastructure investment, tax credits for relevant companies, and other policies. American manufacturers could compete fairly once Chinese and foreign subsidies were counteracted with our own investment. This option requires a massive investment. China invested $47 billion a year to confront barriers to entry for companies. Additionally, China offered a 50 percent subsidy for domestic solar panel parts, half the cost of energy for the grid was subsidized, and 70 percent of the costs for energy off the immediate grid was subsidized (Zhang & He 2013). As a result of these policies, Chinese solar panels grew from seven percent of the global market to 61 percent in less than ten years. Before these policies, the Chinese domestic solar panel industry was struggling as recently as 2010. After these policies were enacted in 2009, China’s domestic market grew more than twenty-fold from 140 megawatts in 2008 to 3300 in 2011 (Zhang & He 2013). Therefore, subsidies likely have the greatest impact on market share and jobs. However, this policy is not domestically viable. A Republican Congress and the Administration must shift politically for this policy to be enacted. For years, both have been skeptical of the solar industry while supporting coal and other forms of energy. Subsidies will have a medium effect on US trade relations. The WTO allows countries to use subsidies to counter another country’s subsidies or to prop up a developing market (U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2006). However, the US is not a developing market, and this argument is potentially flawed. Furthermore, other developed countries may believe US subsidies are unfair and react just as they would with tariffs. Policy Option 3: WTO EnforcementThe US Government could take offenders to the WTO. This would allow for American manufacturers to compete on a level playing field by removing foreign subsidies and to force their products into reflecting true market prices. While legal and administrative fees could range in the millions, this is miniscule compared to subsidies. This likely could be done within existing funds for the US Trade Representative. This would remove unfair practices and return the industry to a competitive market. China cannot have export subsidies as a WTO member, only subsidies to build its domestic market; this is a rule that they have likely violated (U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2006). China also stated that they would cease all export subsidies within Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement in their Accession of the People’s Republic of China in November of 2001 (U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2006). This is a strong argument in a trial. It has also been shown that reducing uneven trade across countries can result in GDP expansion and increased welfare for all countries involved (Egger & Larch 2011). Domestically, this would require nothing more than unilateral action by the federal bureaucracy. The US could file a case to the WTO without Congressional approval. This would be a simple process to start but could take time. This would also have a low effect on US standing with our trade partners. It would not anger third parties, as they are not targeted. In fact, they may be delighted that an unfair competitor is being acted against without any necessary action on their part. This may damage relationships with countries acted against, but any retribution could be cause for a further WTO dispute resolution. Additionally, many cases have been tried in the WTO and trade still exists between these countries. ConclusionWTO enforcement seems the optimal solution. While its effects are only moderate, it can be taken with unilateral action by the Executive Branch at virtually no cost compared to subsidies. The US would preserve international relations by staying within international norms and targeting only offenders. Furthermore, this would be done between countries that have agreed to the terms of WTO membership. Tariffs may cause unintended damage to the domestic solar panel or washing machine industries just as it has for steel mills in the past. The president can act unilaterally in the short term with moderate or large tariffs, but large tariffs that are long lasting need an act of Congress. Trade restrictions like this also risk an escalating trade war. US subsidies would have the largest effect, but large costs go along with it. Congress and the President would both need to switch positions and approve this action. They also open up the US to WTO disputes of its own. Among these pathways, WTO enforcement seems the prudent choice to enforcing free and fair trade while avoiding a global trade war. Will the Trump Administration follow the norms of the past or continue on its disruptive path for which it has become known?
The views expressed above are solely the author's and are not endorsed by the Virginia Policy Review, The Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, or the University of Virginia. Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged in its activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization’s contracts, acts, or omissions. ReferencesBlonigen, B. A., Liebman, B. H., Pierce, J. R., & Wilson, W. W. (2013). Are all trade protection policies created equal? Empirical evidence for nonequivalent market power effects of tariffs and quotas. Journal of International Economics, 89(2), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.08.009
Debaere, P., & Mostashari, S. (2010). Do tariffs matter for the extensive margin of international trade? An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics, 81(2), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2010.03.005 Egger, P., & Larch, M. (2011). An assessment of the Europe agreements’ effects on bilateral trade, GDP, and welfare. European Economic Review, 55(2), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2010.05.002 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (2006, April 5). Chinese Subsidies and US Responses. Retrieved from https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/06_04_04_magnus.pdf Zhang, S., & He, Y. (2013). Analysis on the development and policy of solar PV power in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 21, 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.002 |
