Were the declared results of the Iranian election accurate? Did hardliner Ahmadinejad win resoundingly?
Western governments reacted quite cautiously to the announced results - primarily because they had no information (such as pre-election polls or exit polls) to gauge the fairness. Obama was excoriated by the American right for not speaking out, but as he said, he didn't want America to become the issue, and to have external and internal groupings close ranks simply because of an American pronouncement.
But as heard on BBC World Service radio, an analysis from the UK's Chatham House and St Andrews University has now cast serious doubts on the validity of the declaration. The research was conducted on declared results specifically on a province-by-province basis. Results indicate, inter alia, that:
- in two conservative provinces, a greater than 100% turnout was recorded.
- did an increase in voter turnout swing it? No, because the greatest swing to Ahmadinejad didn't occur in the provinces with greatest increases in turnout.
- For the official results to be true, in a third of the provinces Ahmadinejad would have had to take all previous conservative and centrist votes, all new votes, and 44% of previous reformist votes, which belies continued tensions between reformists and conservatives.
- Ahmadinejad was "markedly unpopular in rural areas", which belies the claim that he triumphed in the more rural provinces.
The BBC's report comprised an interview with one of the researchers, who added several years of recent anecdotal personal experience in Iran, which fleshed out and backed up the analysis of figures.
Further comment was offered that there was an equivalent divide behind the scenes. One aspect of this was that former president Rafsanjani, a reformist, is currently chair of the influential Assembly of Experts.
The Iranian ruling Guardian Council had been assessing some of the results, but this evaluation was of a relatively small number of votes, and didn't look at wider provincial results. They thus reported no major irregularities.
The BBC report also indicated that new (internet-based) media was playing a significant part in information dissemination, so press restrictions are, to some extent at least, not as effective as those in power would like.
The world is watching, yes. But at this point it's hard to see the status quo being overturned: current unrest in Iran is not - yet - at revolutionary pitch. When - if - it all settles, the only lasting effect may be a taint on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad, and Iran's voice in the world.
Sadly, I can never find web references to the full BBC radio reports, but I found one BBC report on that analysis here; the Christian Science Monitor also has a summary here. Chatham House's full report is here.
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Death of a Tamil brutaliser
Recently, both sides finally agreed that the leader of the Tamil Tigers is now dead. He had been killed in the recent action by the Sri Lankan army that, amidst a great deal of civilian anguish, elimanated the remnants of the Tigers as a (current) fighting force.
Velupillai Prabhakaran was apparently a rather obsessive man, at one time saying he'd instructed his people to shoot him if he ever deviated from their goals.
Prabhakaran is arguably credited with instigating the modern phenomenon of suicide bombing, the unpleasant rash sweeping the world.
It is easy to understand the level of desparation running through the populace in arenas of greatly uneven conflict: decades of brutalisation and privation, for example, have brought the Palestinians to where they are today. Motives of suicide bombers are the subject of much disagreement in a range of wildly conflicting studies, but it is clear that oppression - or its perception - is a key factor in most cases. And this directly equates to uneven conflict, which is where the suicide bomber's victimhood lies.
It is such an insidious, indifferent weapon. The prime perpetrators are those who consign the bombers to death, and there should be no sympathy for them. They are - in general - far too willing to murder people whose culpability in the conflict is negligible to none. Indiscriminate killing brutalises all sides: if there emerges any victor in such a conflict, they would have to preside over further decades of a violent society that they inflicted on the collective psyche.
The worst I've heard was reported by Owen Bennett-Jones, a BBC journalist with a strong reputation. He told of a family (in Pakistan, I believe) who recruited a 13-year-old boy to be a suicide bomber, who duly followed his orders. Although the boy was led to understand he would become a religious martyr, the root intention was far more prosaic: a single personal dispute.
All it takes is people who are too easily led (lack of education certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite), plus someone who is lacking enough in humanity to propel someone else to certain death rather than do it themselves.
And this is not to neglect the greatest victims: those many civilians whose only crime is to try to live out the life they found themselves in.
Velupillai Prabhakaran was apparently a rather obsessive man, at one time saying he'd instructed his people to shoot him if he ever deviated from their goals.
Prabhakaran is arguably credited with instigating the modern phenomenon of suicide bombing, the unpleasant rash sweeping the world.
It is easy to understand the level of desparation running through the populace in arenas of greatly uneven conflict: decades of brutalisation and privation, for example, have brought the Palestinians to where they are today. Motives of suicide bombers are the subject of much disagreement in a range of wildly conflicting studies, but it is clear that oppression - or its perception - is a key factor in most cases. And this directly equates to uneven conflict, which is where the suicide bomber's victimhood lies.
It is such an insidious, indifferent weapon. The prime perpetrators are those who consign the bombers to death, and there should be no sympathy for them. They are - in general - far too willing to murder people whose culpability in the conflict is negligible to none. Indiscriminate killing brutalises all sides: if there emerges any victor in such a conflict, they would have to preside over further decades of a violent society that they inflicted on the collective psyche.
The worst I've heard was reported by Owen Bennett-Jones, a BBC journalist with a strong reputation. He told of a family (in Pakistan, I believe) who recruited a 13-year-old boy to be a suicide bomber, who duly followed his orders. Although the boy was led to understand he would become a religious martyr, the root intention was far more prosaic: a single personal dispute.
All it takes is people who are too easily led (lack of education certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite), plus someone who is lacking enough in humanity to propel someone else to certain death rather than do it themselves.
And this is not to neglect the greatest victims: those many civilians whose only crime is to try to live out the life they found themselves in.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Stern, Obama, Wong on climate change
Overnight on BBC radio, I heard an interview with Nicholas Stern, author of the landmark report on the economic ramifications on climate change (the programme, One Planet, can be listened to here).
Stern was discussing in a less formal sense the outlook for climate change. What he had to say was little different to the thoughts expressed here. The situation is urgent but the outlook somewhat pessimistic; and it's in the hands of people to take action and world leaders to show leadership. The interviewer then asked opinions of his son (about 10 years old, from memory) and from a taxi driver. The responses were not entirely surprising. The boy was aware that everyone wasn't looking to the long term, and that people may care about their own kids, but don't see much beyond that. The taxi driver professed to be a global warming skeptic, but said he put energy efficient lights in the house (why? to do his part). On the one hand the problem was in his mind enough to do something simple, but on the other hand, it was too big for him to feel empowered to do more than that.
The answer is to vote, and to vote for someone sufficiently visionary.
In the same broadcast, I heard President Obama had announced plans to develop 100 very fast train links in the US. I didn't appreciate the import until I heard him speak, holding up European examples such as a train link between Madrid and Seville that was so good that more people travelled between those cities by train than by car and plane combined.
That is what I mean by visionary. Obama has the will and capacity to reshape the global political landscape.
Meanwhile in Australia, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is forced to defend the planned emission trading system from attacks from all quarters, right left and centre. The Senate inquiry also drew comment from Ross Garnault, who had been commissioned by the government to report on the issue and options for action. Even he said it was touch and go whether it was worth entirely scrapping the current plan - and incurring the consequent period of inaction while a new proposal was formulated. The present scheme is so hopelessly flawed that none of the non-government senators will support it - so it is doomed in its current incarnation. In any case, it sounds like government backbenchers are pressing for change, such that the efforts of individuals aren't co-opted by corresponding rewards to large industry. That is the least that could be changed. But it is unlikely to be enough to save it, and something better is needed.
Stern was discussing in a less formal sense the outlook for climate change. What he had to say was little different to the thoughts expressed here. The situation is urgent but the outlook somewhat pessimistic; and it's in the hands of people to take action and world leaders to show leadership. The interviewer then asked opinions of his son (about 10 years old, from memory) and from a taxi driver. The responses were not entirely surprising. The boy was aware that everyone wasn't looking to the long term, and that people may care about their own kids, but don't see much beyond that. The taxi driver professed to be a global warming skeptic, but said he put energy efficient lights in the house (why? to do his part). On the one hand the problem was in his mind enough to do something simple, but on the other hand, it was too big for him to feel empowered to do more than that.
The answer is to vote, and to vote for someone sufficiently visionary.
In the same broadcast, I heard President Obama had announced plans to develop 100 very fast train links in the US. I didn't appreciate the import until I heard him speak, holding up European examples such as a train link between Madrid and Seville that was so good that more people travelled between those cities by train than by car and plane combined.
That is what I mean by visionary. Obama has the will and capacity to reshape the global political landscape.
Meanwhile in Australia, the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is forced to defend the planned emission trading system from attacks from all quarters, right left and centre. The Senate inquiry also drew comment from Ross Garnault, who had been commissioned by the government to report on the issue and options for action. Even he said it was touch and go whether it was worth entirely scrapping the current plan - and incurring the consequent period of inaction while a new proposal was formulated. The present scheme is so hopelessly flawed that none of the non-government senators will support it - so it is doomed in its current incarnation. In any case, it sounds like government backbenchers are pressing for change, such that the efforts of individuals aren't co-opted by corresponding rewards to large industry. That is the least that could be changed. But it is unlikely to be enough to save it, and something better is needed.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Kenneth Clark's Civilisation
Kenneth Clark's vision of civilisation had a viscereal effect on me.
Not too long ago, I happened upon the 1973 BBC series The Ascent Of Man, a monumental dissertation by Jacob Bronowski. It is a scientist's view of the history of humanity, and Bronowski is very humanist and thoughtful - in both the philosophical and analytical senses - in his considerations. An intellectual pleasure to watch.
It was made as a complement to Clark's 1969 series Civilisation. Again, I happened on this - at the local library - and was interested in this art historian's view of history - also said to be monumental.
However, I found this work to be disturbing rather than thought-provoking. Clark had ideas and narrative too, and put a lot of thought into it. Yet he quite struck me as fascistic in his view of the progress of history. His was an elitist perspective, whereby the watchword was a specific romantic vision of the "hero" - a unique person in history who by force of will forged a part of civilisation.
This was not Bronowski's gentle but rousing celebration of achievement; more, a Nietzchean tale of the triumph of the spirit over mere mortals, while ignoring all those that provide the milieu in which the individual achieves. Not to decry the achievements of a Shakespeare or a Da Vinci, but a lack of celebration of the synergetics of a society is ignorant at best.
As a scientist, Bonowski knows the scientific dialectic is a marvellous example of the joy of collective achievement and the exciting exchange of ideas. Particularly insightful and imaginative individuals such as Charles Darwin are rightly lauded as leaving a full body of meaningful work. But we learn and foster ideas when we have a culture in which to express. And those who have contributed ideas that languish - such as Mendel - can be resurrected later when those ideas are discovered to contribute anew to the dialectic.
Clark's world is one in which an Albert Speer could have been lauded - if his creations had survived context. Success is its own justification; in this world, Carravagio could be seen as being rightly justified in torturing models to death in search of his muse.
On a personal level, I feel Clark has debased the legacy of some of those whose work I admire, such as Michelangelo and Da Vinci. And better celebrations of history through architecture and art can be found.
Not too long ago, I happened upon the 1973 BBC series The Ascent Of Man, a monumental dissertation by Jacob Bronowski. It is a scientist's view of the history of humanity, and Bronowski is very humanist and thoughtful - in both the philosophical and analytical senses - in his considerations. An intellectual pleasure to watch.
It was made as a complement to Clark's 1969 series Civilisation. Again, I happened on this - at the local library - and was interested in this art historian's view of history - also said to be monumental.
However, I found this work to be disturbing rather than thought-provoking. Clark had ideas and narrative too, and put a lot of thought into it. Yet he quite struck me as fascistic in his view of the progress of history. His was an elitist perspective, whereby the watchword was a specific romantic vision of the "hero" - a unique person in history who by force of will forged a part of civilisation.
This was not Bronowski's gentle but rousing celebration of achievement; more, a Nietzchean tale of the triumph of the spirit over mere mortals, while ignoring all those that provide the milieu in which the individual achieves. Not to decry the achievements of a Shakespeare or a Da Vinci, but a lack of celebration of the synergetics of a society is ignorant at best.
As a scientist, Bonowski knows the scientific dialectic is a marvellous example of the joy of collective achievement and the exciting exchange of ideas. Particularly insightful and imaginative individuals such as Charles Darwin are rightly lauded as leaving a full body of meaningful work. But we learn and foster ideas when we have a culture in which to express. And those who have contributed ideas that languish - such as Mendel - can be resurrected later when those ideas are discovered to contribute anew to the dialectic.
Clark's world is one in which an Albert Speer could have been lauded - if his creations had survived context. Success is its own justification; in this world, Carravagio could be seen as being rightly justified in torturing models to death in search of his muse.
On a personal level, I feel Clark has debased the legacy of some of those whose work I admire, such as Michelangelo and Da Vinci. And better celebrations of history through architecture and art can be found.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama is sometimes black
In reading the headlines in Australian newspapers, it's easy to get the impression that the only notable feature of Barack Obama as president is that he is black. Never mind his ethics, intelligence, insight, vision, coherency - and praxis. As a letter-writer took glee in pointing out in two Australian papers, Martin Luthor King said "[I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where] they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." That writer didn't notice anything particular about Obama; he had already missed the boat.
But Obama is sometimes black. Meaning, there is sometimes some particular significance [beyond what his experiences have fed into his character]. This even apart from those around the world who are now infusing his ethics and asking themselves in a given situation "what would Obama do?"
BBC World Service radio recorded and reported some personal experiences from some people who had made the trek to Washington to experience the inaugeration in person. One African American woman expressed how he was a personal inspiration to her, his example encouraging her to a greater level of personal responsibility in her life. (Not that she, from her discourse, seemed to lack any particular sense of responsibility. It seemed, more, that she felt that connection, and felt duty-bound to take her sense of responsibility to a higher level.)
It is not my intention to purvey any sort of condescension here, but rather to convey a sense of the inspiration he has provided to so many people that would not have otherwise been engaged were he not African American.
Obama is black when it has particular significance. But for the most part, he is more than that.
But Obama is sometimes black. Meaning, there is sometimes some particular significance [beyond what his experiences have fed into his character]. This even apart from those around the world who are now infusing his ethics and asking themselves in a given situation "what would Obama do?"
BBC World Service radio recorded and reported some personal experiences from some people who had made the trek to Washington to experience the inaugeration in person. One African American woman expressed how he was a personal inspiration to her, his example encouraging her to a greater level of personal responsibility in her life. (Not that she, from her discourse, seemed to lack any particular sense of responsibility. It seemed, more, that she felt that connection, and felt duty-bound to take her sense of responsibility to a higher level.)
It is not my intention to purvey any sort of condescension here, but rather to convey a sense of the inspiration he has provided to so many people that would not have otherwise been engaged were he not African American.
Obama is black when it has particular significance. But for the most part, he is more than that.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lucy Kellaway on unemployment
Although many economic indicators around the world are at their worst measure since the Great Depression, there is one that beats them all. The Bank of England's interest rate has sunk to its lowest level in over three hundred years.*
Meanwhile, the ultra dry Lucy Kellaway, financial/management commentator for the BBC and Financial Times, gives her take on advice for employment and unemployment (reported here in the Irish Times). As always, she's well worth a read**.
She reports with great bemusement the three tips from the Harvard Business Review on how to keep your job: act like a survivor, show empathy to your boss, and be a good "corporate citizen". Her response: it would make your job so loathsome that you wouldn't mind losing it.
Kellaway herself looks at being unemployed. She derides the standard philosophies of "networking like crazy", assessing strengths and weaknesses, and beefing up one's web presence: "It is too late to do sensible things".
Her thoughts on four things needed:
- a tidy pile of savings
- character ("backbone and level-headedness")
- perseverance (it may take time and shoe leather)
- luck
[However, in contrast to her also recommending a holiday, I would suggest a different change: training. The world is constantly changing, and such a time is ideal for improving skills and employability.]
*Still not the evolutionary upheaval of capitalism outlined by Marx. Globally, capitalist development clearly hasn't yet run out of expansion room.
**Her latest annual awards for management twaddle give a good read too. Her award for Best Term for Sacking People: "upgrade", as in "we're going to upgrade you: allow you to move on so you can upgrade your career elsewhere".
Meanwhile, the ultra dry Lucy Kellaway, financial/management commentator for the BBC and Financial Times, gives her take on advice for employment and unemployment (reported here in the Irish Times). As always, she's well worth a read**.
She reports with great bemusement the three tips from the Harvard Business Review on how to keep your job: act like a survivor, show empathy to your boss, and be a good "corporate citizen". Her response: it would make your job so loathsome that you wouldn't mind losing it.
Kellaway herself looks at being unemployed. She derides the standard philosophies of "networking like crazy", assessing strengths and weaknesses, and beefing up one's web presence: "It is too late to do sensible things".
Her thoughts on four things needed:
- a tidy pile of savings
- character ("backbone and level-headedness")
- perseverance (it may take time and shoe leather)
- luck
[However, in contrast to her also recommending a holiday, I would suggest a different change: training. The world is constantly changing, and such a time is ideal for improving skills and employability.]
*Still not the evolutionary upheaval of capitalism outlined by Marx. Globally, capitalist development clearly hasn't yet run out of expansion room.
**Her latest annual awards for management twaddle give a good read too. Her award for Best Term for Sacking People: "upgrade", as in "we're going to upgrade you: allow you to move on so you can upgrade your career elsewhere".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)