Some Constructive Criticism for the GOP in 2016

To: The Republican Party

From: A Liberal Democrat from New York

Subject: Some Constructive Criticism for 2016

As the Grand Ol’ Party is still smarting from last week’s Election Day whipping, trying to figure out just what went so horribly wrong, optimists ought to set their sights on put together a better campaign in 2016. As a rabidly liberal Jewish Democrat from New York, I might be the last person whom the RNC might look to for advice; I am not from a swing state, and I’m the kind of person the RNC has completely written off. But since I respect some conservative principles, and I see some inherent worth in the health of our democracy by having a viable Republican Party, I feel obligated to lend some frank advice. Judging by the extent of Republican losses last week, I might be the best kind of person to listen to.

New York is now taken for granted in the blue column, and Democrats control every statewide office in Albany. This one-party regime is a creation not so much because New York Democrats run a flawless operation - boy, are we flawed – as because the New York Republican Party has, as a whole, proven themselves to be a complete and total joke.

But it wasn’t always that way. For years, New York state politics was dominated by Nelson Rockefeller, the ultimate Establishment Republican, and we elected Peekskill Republican George Pataki to the Governor’s office three times. We sent moderate Republicans like Alfonse D’Amato and Jacob Javits to the Senate, Hamilton Fish and Sherwood Boehlert to the House. Even in New York City, the large majorities voted for Rudy Giuliani twice and Mike Bloomberg thrice. We liked these moderate Republicans because they promised to keep business booming and Wall Street roaring, to maintain law and order and make sure the trains ran on time. College-educated, socially liberal suburbanites felt comfortable pulling the lever for a Republican who would promise to advance civil rights laws, protect our water and air from pollution, and reform government from the taint of corruption. They were conservative – but not reactionary. There's a big difference.

But something went awry in the mid-2000s, when the New York GOP all but conceded statewide races to the Democratic Party. The breaking point came in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial race when New York Republicans were given a choice between Rick Lazio – a telegenic former Congressman from Long Island – and Carl Paladino – a Buffalo-area developer who reminded many people of their inexplicably petulant, kinda racist father-in-law with whom they struggle at every Thanksgiving to make pleasant small talk. Paladino railed against the “Mosque at Ground Zero”, chastised Andrew Cuomo for attending the Gay Pride Parade, proudly brandished his handgun in public and vowed to repeal the assault weapons ban. Paladino was a running punch line to jokes that didn't even need a set-up. But given the choice between Lazio and Paladino, GOP primary voters inexplicably gave their nomination to the right wing clown. Paladino was trounced 34% to Cuomo’s 61%; his showing was so bad that the Democratic candidate even prevailed in almost every Upstate county. The walking, talking fiasco that was Carl Paladino was an omen of the GOP’s nation-wide ills in 2012. You didn't heed it.

So what does that mean for the national Republican Party if they want to have a chance at the White House in 2016? Well, first of all, try fielding a candidate that could actually campaign in states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California. It's not that we're self-centered, it's just that we're almost half the population of the United States. So long as you give the Democratic Party 196 electoral votes for granted, you’re putting your party at a monumental disadvantage. Stop fielding such total losers.  

Speaking of total losers, fuhgettabout Paul Ryan. Mitt Romney didn’t lose this election alone – Paul Ryan lost it too. Though subscribers to The National Review might ogle and fantasize at centerfolds of the Ryan Budget Plan, its draconian cuts to popular social programs were anathema to just about each and every swing voter. Ryan was a drag on the ticket even more so because the “legitimate rape” fiasco extended to the Congressman – who had co-sponsored legislation with Todd Akin to narrow the definition of rape to only cases where violent force was used. This was not just a campaign “gotcha!” moment or guilt-by-association. Paul Ryan is a man who wants to deny victims of rape legal protections if their rapist subdued them with Roofies or psychological coercion - but didn't actually use violent force against them - because that wouldn't be a legitimate rape, in his co-sponsors words. Paul Ryan will never be able to disown this. Besides, Ryan went to lose his home state of Wisconsin by 4.6 points. Putting this loser on the top of the ticket in 2016 would be as bone-headed a decision as the Democrats choice to nominate Walter Mondale in 1984 after he and Carter got creamed four years’ prior. Why put yourself through this again?

Republicans are famous for giving their presidential nominations to the candidate who has waited patiently for his turn, usually the Vice President of two-term Republican administration (Nixon, Bush I) or the runner-up in the last primary campaign (McCain, Romney). According to that standard, the GOP’s 2016 nominee would be... (drumroll please)... Rick Santorum. Chew on that for a moment.

If you thought that this election was a disappointment, imagine how bad this day will be four years from now with Rick Santorum – or Rick Perry, or Newt Gingrich, or Michele Bachmann at the top of the ticket. It would be a 20-point washout. Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden would win Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Montana, maybe even make competitive races in Alabama and Utah, Democrats down the ticket would win filibuster proof supermajorities in the Senate and House that would reign for a generation. If the GOP nominates any of 2012’s fire-breathing runners-up, they would be committing hari-kari and might as well just declare their retirement from electoral politics. Republicans had a real chance to win the White House and the Senate, and this band of nincompoops, through their own humiliatingly stupid, piggish conduct and - I'm sorry - their kooky beliefs about penises and vaginas, just cost you a perfectly winnable election. You do not owe them anything.

If the 2012 elections stand for anything, it is that Republicans who espouse retrograde views on race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation are now forever doomed – even in Bible Belt states like Indiana and Missouri. If they have ever tried to minimize the pain and suffering of victims of rape, they're done. Toast. If the GOP puts up a “fresh face” like John Thune or Bob “transvaginal ultrasound” McDonnell, it will make little to no difference. Most swing voters, especially in Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire, are thoroughly libertarian on social issues. The Chamber of Commerce, laissez faire wing of the Republican Party needs to acknowledge that the Christian Right’s influence over a GOP candidate is now a veritable kiss of death in these pivotal states and that the nominating committees ought to heed the Scriptural admonition about putting new wine in old bottles.

It’s a good thing that smart conservatives were able to acknowledge that Romney ticket lost so badly in no small part because they had an abjectly awful showing amongst Hispanics, Asians, and – no surprise here – African-Americans. Take this moment to approach the Birthers and the Minutemen and Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other racists hiding in plain view and promptly throw them under the bus. The enormous turnout among racial minorities for Obama was not just because they were enamored with the first biracial President – it’s because they were also thoroughly turned off by the Romney campaign’s blatantly race-baiting tactics and much of the Republican platform. Seriously, for your own good, cut it out.

However, fielding a token member of a racial minority group such as Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, or Susana Martinez is no silver bullet to the Republican Party’s gaping, festering sore on matters of race. Some of the most hateful, bigoted comments in the 2012 campaign season came from none other than Herman Cain. People aren’t stupid, and we understand that for the RNC to go search for a dark-skinned candidate committed to spewing derogatory bile on illegal immigrants and food stamp recipients is just playing a game of tokenism. Voters can see through this charade. See, e.g., the electoral fate of Allen West, Mia Love. See, also, Alberto Gonzalez.

So if the Republican Party ever wants to see the inside of the White House again, they have to elect a moderate-to-libertarian conservative who promises competence, strong leadership, and greater fealty to working across party lines to solve America’s problems than to Tea Party ideology. A successful candidate must have some experience working in foreign policy or at least demonstrate enough interest in global affairs so as to go toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden for the title of Commander in Chief. A successful candidate pitching to professionals anywhere within commuting distance of a metropolitan area must be able to express genuine interest in improving public transit and not bash those who use it as some "subway-riding elite." He or she must be able to relate with families who are working their butts off to send their kids through college or young professionals struggling to pay off their student loans without deriding us as "snobs." It would help if that candidate hails from a fairly cosmopolitan state or at least has experience working together with racial minorities and immigrant communities with cultures unlike his or her own. It would help if that candidate is able to negotiate with union groups in a decidedly non-antagonistic manner, or at least show some sensitivity to working class concerns. The candidate must acknowledge that global warming is quite real, that it is man-made, that it is a threat to national security and that America needs to drastically overhaul our energy infrastructure to mitigate the threat of future Sandys and Katrinas. Unless the GOP can mature enough to satisfy the above, they will slowly atrophy into a regional minority party that can only win elections in the former Confederacy, the Mormon West, and the depopulating Great Plains.

¡Viva la Estadidad de Puerto Rico!

         

            Now that the long, drawn out 2012 campaign season has come and gone, we partisans have taken down our lawn signs and recovered from our Election Night hangovers, it’s time for the members of our democratic government to come together and implement the expressed will of the people.

First order of business: Puerto Rico. Yes, Puerto Rico.

 On Election Day, Puerto Rican voters addressed a two-part referendum on the unincorporated territory’s relationship with the United States government. On the first question, the voters first voted as to whether to keep the current status as an unincorporated U.S. territory, and then in the second question, whether to retain their status as a territory of the U.S., whether to declare independence, or to join the Union as a full-fledged state. It appears that more than 937,955, or 54 percent of the voters said “No” on the first question – indicating that they were discontent with the present territory status. Almost 500,000 voters chose to leave the second question blank, but of those who did vote, 805,155, or 61 percent of the electorate, chose statehood. For comparison’s sake, President Obama won 50 percent of the popular vote in the presidential election, and this has been interpreted as a broad electoral mandate. So 54 percent of the Puerto Rican electorate voting against the status quo, and 61 percent voting for statehood should be interpreted as nothing less than an unambiguous mandate for change.

Likewise, the voting returns showed another unambiguous mandate for change: Latino voters showed that they are abandoning the Republican Party in droves, not the least because they are alienated by the GOP’s increasingly vocal disdain for Latino voters. In the past three election cycles, the GOP standard-bearers have suffered in the past two presidential elections as their share of the Latino vote dropped from 40% for George W. Bush in 2004 to 31% for John McCain and 27% for Mitt Romney – all the while the Latino share of the electorate has soared. This cannot be explained away because law-and-order Republicans want to enforce immigration laws. Over the past few years, Republican demagoguery on this issue has taken a turn for the shrill and patently offensive; i.e. Arizona’s racial-profiling SB1070, even worse copycat statutes in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, English-Only resolutions, calls for a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship, “anchor babies”, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's prominent role at the Republican National Convention, etc. Latino alienation extended to GOP standad bearer Mitt Romney because he unabashedly pandered to these xenophobic forces to win his party's nomination. Exit polling data evinces that the GOP's alienation of Latino voters has not just been a phenomenon confined to immigrant communities; this trend has led thoroughly-assimilated Latino-Americans, and even Puerto Ricans – who are unquestionably U.S. citizens – to by and large reject the Republican brand.

Enter Puerto Rico. What with the Grand Ol’ Party’s post mortem soul searching, the Puerto Rican statehood plebiscite offers an opportunity for President Obama to work together with the Party of Lincoln on a major issue in what could be a rare moment of bipartisanship, and perhaps set a reconciliatory tone for a productive second term. The GOP ought to jump at the chance, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because supporting Puerto Rican statehood is the least that Republicans can do to set the record straight and demonstrate that they do support at least one Latino community’s quest to expand their rights as U.S. citizens.

            This is where all of the rest of us Americans come in. In order for Puerto Rico to join the Union and become the 51st state, the other 50 have to agree to that – not as individual states, but as a nation. According to Article IV of the Constitution, Congress has the power to admit new states the Union; Congress doesn’t have to admit states to the Union. It can, and it has rarely declined. Though America hasn’t admitted a new state to the Union since the admission of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959, the framework for doing so would be the Enabling Act of 1802, by which Ohio became a state. In order to admit a new state, Congress would likewise pass an Enabling Act which authorizes the people of a given territory to frame a constitution. There would also be some requirements for a successful candidate for admission: the people of the would-be state have to hold a constitutional convention to decide by majority whether to form a state constitution and a state government, and the state constitution must be republican (lower case R) in nature. Upon Congress’ acceptance of that constitution, the territory would be admitted to the Union as a new state, and its residents would gain all of the rights and responsibilities that his newfound status entails.

            Upon the official certification of the results of the Puerto Rican referendum, the ball will be in Congress’ court. This should really be a no-brainer. Congress ought to pass an Enabling Act immediately and unanimously. There is no question about population; with roughly 3,706,690 permanent residents, Puerto Rico would be the 29^th-most populous state – with more people than Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi or Connecticut. Unlike statehood for the District of Columbia, there is no suggestion that statehood would thwart the intent of the Founding Fathers. There is no question of loyalty; Puerto Ricans are already American citizens, they already serve in the military, and they vote in primary elections. Most importantly, a clear majority of Puerto Ricans have now exercised their franchise to signify that they want to be full-fledged members of the American experience.

            So far, the cause of Puerto Rican statehood has been most publicly championed by liberal Democrats like President Obama, and some of the very most populist members of the House: Bronx Representatives José Serrano and Nydia Velázquez, and Chicago Congressman Luis Gutíerrez. The onus is now on the Party of Lincoln to follow suite. When the House of Representatives voted on Serrano’s Puerto Rico Democracy Act in the 110^th Congress – essentially a symbolic resolution which supported the holding of the Puerto Rican plebiscite, it passed 223 to 189, with Democrats voting 184 “yeas” and 40 “nays”, and Republicans voting almost inversely, 39 “yeas”  and 129 “nays.” This was a grave mistake, and it ought not be repeated. This time, with Puertorriqueños awaiting an Enabling Act so that they can hold a statehood convention, the whole world is watching.            

The second island state could even be a fertile ground for Republican voters. Much of the predominantly Catholic population holds traditional views on marriage, sexuality, and abortion, and one of the main reasons why Puerto Ricans oppose statehood is that they do not want to pay federal income taxes. For the past four years, the office of gobernador was held by Luis Fortuño – a Scott Walker-type conservative who cut government spending, privatized public employee pensions, slashed personal income taxes by a half and corporate income taxes by a third, and joined Republican governors in calling for the repeal of Obamacare. Puerto Rico could be a real swing state – that is, so long as Congressional Republicans join their Democratic colleagues in passing an Enabling Act. If there is any meaningful GOP opposition to any votes on Puerto Rican statehood, expect it to create an indelible memory in Puerto Rican politics for generations.

What with the explicitly non-partisan nature of Puerto Rican statehood, this is truly Republican’s opportunity to lose. Unlike Serrano’s bill – which was really just a non-binding resolution – an Enabling Act in this next session of Congress would in fact pave the way for Puerto Rico to embark on the road to statehood. This is a roll call vote which will be watched very closely; it might very well be one of the most consequential votes for the political future of individual lawmakers’ careers but also for the viability of the Republican Party among Latino voters.

There simply is no viable rationale for any U.S. lawmaker to defy the express will of the Puerto Rican electorate. Even if lawmakers condition their support for statehood on the adoption of English as the official language, they indicate their latent prejudice against the Spanish-speaking population as being somehow un-American. See, e.g., Rick Santorum's ill-advised reservation that Puerto Rico “should comply with this and every other federal law – and that is that English must be the main language"; Rep. Dan Burton's insertion of language into the Puerto Rico Democracy Act expressing that “any official language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply to Puerto Rico”. Such insistence that Puerto Ricans speak English indicates these lawmakers’ ignorance of the fact that Puerto Ricans study English in every grade of public school. It also indicates such politicians' ignorance of the law; there is no official language of the United States, let alone a linguistic prerequisite for states’ admission to the Union. Louisiana became the 18th state in the Union as a bilingual Anglophone-Francophone state, and Hawaii became the 50th with English and Hawaiian as official state languages.

Any other argument for suppressing the will of this Election Day’s referendum would simply be grasping at straws. Because Puerto Ricans are already American citizens through and through, there is no question whatsoever about illegal immigration. Many Puerto Rican residents do not want to have to pay federal income taxes – but a clear majority of voters have expressed their consent to do so. With the next wave of reapportionment in 2022, some states will lose House seats and electoral votes to make way for Puerto Rico’s Congressional delegation – but those states would already be losing House seats and electoral votes to other states with faster-growing populations. Some mainland Americans have even expressed concern with violating the present symmetry of the 50 stars on the American flag – such a lame rationale for denying 3 million U.S. citizens their civil rights isn’t even worth a serious response.

So when the referendum votes are officially certified, and President Obama and Senate leader Harry Reid call for a Puerto Rican Statehood Enabling Act – and you can bet that Democratic Congressmen will be tripping over each other trying to be the original sponsor of this bill – the Republican Caucus in the House and Senate ought to follow suite. The GOP has to support Puerto Rican statehood not just because it’s the right thing to do, but it might be the first best opportunity for Republican officeholders to demonstrate that they are for expanding the rights of citizenship to a rapidly-growing Latino constituency. And once that door is open, perhaps the open-minded members of the Party of Lincoln might put bipartisanship and compromise back in their vocabulary and realize just how great it feels to be on the right side of progress on civil rights. This could be the harbinger of even greater legislative efforts to come. Maybe, just maybe, working together on Puerto Rican statehood might inspire enough Republicans to reach across the aisle and work with the President to pass an immigration reform bill that allows another huge swath of Latinos living and working in our country to realize their full potential as American citizens.  

 

Ought there be a Limit on Free Speech in the Subway?

The subway is a public forum of sorts; it is a place where people of all races, religions, and classes intermingle, where commuters read their newspapers, gripe about the weather, and sometimes even wade into vigorous debate about the grand issues of the day. Without a doubt, the subway is a part of the public sphere where speech is protected by the First Amendment – to a reasonable degree.  

        However, subway cars, platforms, stairwells and tunnels were built by cities to move people from point A to point B as quickly and safely as possible. Speech activities are not as protected on the subway to the degree that they are in the public square. Likewise, the New York MTA prohibits canvassing, soliciting, leafleting, blasting loud music, and any other sort of disorderly conduct “which may cause or tend to cause annoyance, alarm, or inconvenience to a reasonable person or create a breach of the peace.” And the unwritten rules of subway etiquette include that one ought to refrain from giving co-riders eye contact – let alone get up in peoples’ faces and egg on a fight.

Enter stage right the ‘American Freedom Defense Initiative' (i.e. professional Islamophobe author Pamela Geller) and (her) now-infamous “Civilized Man” ad hanging in certain New York, San Francisco, and Washington public transit stations specifically selected for their proximity to Jewish and Muslim communities.

 

              You don’t have to try very hard to connect the dots in Geller’s crude analysis. Geller all but explicitly proclaims: “Muslims are a bunch of savages”, or “Palestinians are a bunch of uncivilized sub-humans”; “Israeli Civilization is at war with them, so you should fight them too.” Why does she want to do this? Pamela Geller runs a blog Atlas Shrugs where she documents her thesis that all Muslims are violent “savages” and that Judeo-Christian White America ought to take the offensive against these undermenschen in a Clash of Civilizations. There is not enough sectarian warfare in the United States for Geller to make a convincing argument, so Geller stitched together a message unarguably intended to offend, to provoke vandalism, and to create for herself more opportunities to find photos of Muslims standing around, looking angry and menacing in your subway! Like the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video, this is a perfect example of trolling – the “Civilized Man” poster was made for the express purpose of pushing people to commit acts of violence.  

Not without ample justification, the New York MTA originally rejected Geller’s “Civilized Man” ads, citing the agency’s advertising policy which prohibits any advertisement “that demean(s) an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation.” However, Geller’s AFDI sued the MTA, pleading for a preliminary injunction to strike down the “no demeaning” standard.

               Quite consequently, the MTA had already been in the business of selling ad space to groups - including Geller's - advocating certain positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Witness the progress of the spillover of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on US metro transit authorities over the past few years:

A pro-Palestinian group put this poster went up in Washington-area trains and buses in 2011. The policy objective of the above is radical by any standard. But of course this is political speech protected by the First Amendment. It’s even gosh darn polite.

Another pro-Palestinian group decided to push the envelope a little further.

This ad generated plenty of controversy in the New York metro region; the MTA received thousands of complaints, my local Assemblyman Robert Castelli made a push to get the MTA to take the posters down from Metro-North stations, reasoning that though “there is no offensive language in the message”, “by its very nature, it is inflammatory an directs a negative message toward Israel and her people.” The MTA didn’t budge. Some Zionist groups went berserk.

                Just like the legitimate debate over Israel and Palestine’s borders has been hijacked by racial extremists on both sides, Pamela Geller sought to throw a Molotov cocktail into the debate to extinguish all civil discussion. Completely bypassing reasonable dialogue on U.S. foreign policy, Geller appealed to the vilest of strategies in political rhetoric:thinly-veiled white supremacy.
 

Surely there is a difference between Geller’s ad and the prior two not just in perspective but also in tone and substance. The first two might be thought-provoking, particularly controversial. But the “Civilized Man” ad went out of its way to be offensive. Unfortunately/fortunately (depending on your perspective), that's not a distinction that the First Amendment permits the government to make.

 In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. MTA, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled for Geller, reasoning that the MTA had created a public forum, the MTA had sold ad space to pro-Palestinian groups, the MTA can’t engage in viewpoint discrimination and allow ads espousing one opinion and rejecting those of another. If the MTA is going to sell ad space, the state may not put its thumb on the scale of the free marketplace of ideas and allow one viewpoint but prohibit another. The majesty of the First Amendment entails that if the city is going to grant the NAACP a permit to parade in Central Park, it has to also grant a permit to the Aryan Nation.

                Moreover, the MTA “no-demeaning” rule was only applicable to language demeaning of members of the enumerated groups, and thus it was not narrowly-tailored to meet any justifiable end. As Engelmayer reasoned, according to the MTA rule an advertiser would be perfectly free to state “Southerners are bigots”; “Upper West Siders are elitist snobs”; “Fat people are slobs”; “Blondes are bimbos” or “Lawyers are sleazebags” – language demeaning of certain classes of people – so long as it did not demean classes of people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The MTA policy regulated the content of speech in a way that was not inconsistent with the First Amendment. The ads went up last month.

              In American Freedom Defense Institute v. WMATA,Pamela Geller waged a slightly different lawsuit against the Washington-area public transit authority, which refused to put up her “Savage” ads not for demeaning language but for security reasons. WMATA lawyer Philip Straub invoked the then-still-ongoing mob violence and terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic personnel aroused by the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video. He even cited the Department of Homeland Security, which had notified the transit authorities that such an ad could increase the threat of terrorism in the Washington metro. According to Straub, DHS advised WMATA that the “Savage” ad “could not be displayed in our system until passions have cooled somewhat.”

Straub also argued that they agency could reject the “Civilized Man” ad under the “fighting words” doctrine. It is not difficult to see how Geller’s ad can be interpreted as falling into this category of “fighting words.” As Justice Frank Murphy articulated the exception to the First Amendment in the classic case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Referring to Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims as “savages” is unarguably insulting, profane and libelous. But Geller did much more than that – but she called for subway passengers to side with Israel in the war against those “savages”. How ought we engage in such ethno-sectarian warfare against the “savages”? The AFDI’s innuendo-filled call to arms is reminiscent of the anti-Tutsi propaganda Radio Mille Collines’ broadcast during the Rwandan genocide; it came in coded phrases; “Cut down the tall trees!” and “Exterminate the cockroaches!” The ad doesn’t give explicit instructions – it doesn't say "Punch a Muslim!" or "Graffiti a mosque!" it lets its readers come to their own conclusions.  

In the end, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer granted the American Freedom Defense Institute’s request for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that the WMATA’s fear of mob violence in the DC Metro was too vague and speculative. According to the Brandenburg Test, the government cannot restrict speech unless it carries:
1. the intent to incite violence;
2. the violence must be imminent; and
3. there must be a distinct likelihood that the speech will proximately cause violence.

Geller’s ad fulfills the Intent element, but even though the Department of Homeland Security had feared the possibility of terrorist reprisals, the mere fact that that the transit authority feared that someone could be whipped into violence was insufficient grounds for censorship.  

In the wake of these rulings, the transit authorities of New York, DC, and elsewhere are posed with a quandary; so long as they sell ad space along subway tunnels and the sides of buses, is there any way or the state agencies to regulate content without running afoul of the Constitution? According to Judge Engelmayer and Collyer’s decisions, say the local Neo-Nazi organization wants to put up a recruitment poster saying “Those greedy, hook-nosed shysters took your job and took your house. Take one of their silly hats!” Suppose the Klu Klux Klan wants to put up ads saying: “Those lazy bums are mugging you and stealing your hard-earned tax dollars to buy crack and grape soda. Fight back!” Is the MTA powerless to resist?  Must our trains and buses become receptacles for the absolutely most scurrilous vitriol? Do we subway commuters have to participate in this sociological experiment against our will?

In response to the federal court decision, the New York MTA board adopted by a vote of 8-0 a new policy banning any advertisement that the MTA board “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.” Essentially, the new rule would ban “trolling” in the limited public forums of subway ad space.  

But when is speech “trolling”? It’s hard to lay out scientific parameters, but society has caught wind of the subset which gets its perverse kicks by throwing out incendiary words just short of being “fighting words” per se. Indeed, the sine qua non of trolling is that it doesn’t explicitly exhort the masses to commit murder and mayhem, but it drives right up to that line of sowing hatred and provoking violence with full knowledge that that is enough to achieve the intended result. And just before a troller actually becomes a co-conspirator in the violence which will foreseeably ensue, the yellow-bellied bastards tweak their speech just enough so that it is protected speech and they can hide behind the aegis of the First Amendment. Trolling is rather amorphous, inherently vague and difficult to define – but it is certainly identifiable on a case by case basis. Like how Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography, “I know it when I see it.”

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz immediately cried foul at the MTA’s new anti-trolling rule.  “A. it’s clearly unconstitutional” he said, and “B. it incentivizes people to engage in violence. What it says to people, is that if they don’t like ads, just engage in violence and then we’ll take the ads down.”

I’m afraid that Dershowitz might be right on this one. According to Brandenburg v. Ohio, the government cannot punish even inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Even if Geller’s“Civilized Man” ad or Bacile’s “The Innocence of Muslims” were created with the express intent of inciting Muslims to violence, even if a violent reprisal is reasonably foreseeable, it’s very difficult burden for the state to prove that any such violence is both likely and imminent. Because it is indeed carefully threaded so as to comply with constitutional law, trolling might be just as much protected speech as is picketing a military funeral or burning an American flag.

So the sad fact of the matter is that Pamela Geller is like a bad case of anal warts – polite society might not have any effective remedy to make her go away, and we’re going to have to learn to live with her uncomfortable, obnoxious presence. Part of the deal of living in a free society is that we have to tolerate ideologues of intolerance, whether they be the Klu Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, the Thirteenth Tribe, or the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

The silver lining is that even though Pamela Geller and her cohorts of hatemongers may have won their First Amendment case, it’s a very Pyrrhic victory. In winning the right to put up the “Civilized Man” poster, now the ‘American Freedom Defense Initiative’ has only won the opportunity to compete in the marketplace of ideas. And their ideas are losing. Big time. Mainstream liberal and even conservative Jewish voices including Rabbi Richard Jacobs – the leader of the Reform movement, the Jewish Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, et al., are unanimously horrified by how low Geller has stooped in her so-called “pro-Israel” advocacy. Pamela Geller may have won the battle to put up her racist placards, but in doing so, she’s really helping the Jewish Right lose the war for the hearts and minds of America’s Jewish youth. When self-proclaimed defenders of Israel denigrate Palestinians as “savages”, and make crude appeals to “civilization” i.e. white solidarity, they have lost an entire generation of American Jews. Thanks to this “Civilized Man” ad, showing just how race-baiting and fear-mongering “pro-Israel” advocacy can be, many Jews are probably going to be much more wary of the Jewish Right and its Willie Horton-like scare tactics.
 

When the dust has settled, it looks like Geller’s foray into the marketplace of ideas may just completely backfire. The ruckus over the despicable “Savage” ads are encouraging fair-minded Jews to speak up, to call out Islamophobia and racism amongst our own ranks, and we're much less scared of advocating for for a sane, peaceful diplomatic policy in the Levant for fear of being labeled "anti-Israel." When I read the literature of America’s new voices, I hear calls for a new identity of Jewish Americans based on tolerance, reconciliation and peaceful relations with other faiths and cultures. Most important of all, Pamela Geller may have inadvertently highlighted the imperative for civil negotiations over the Mideast conflict, leading to an independent Israel and Palestine, living together, side by side, in security and in peace. 

Renegade Mali Soldiers Pledge to Step Down, Feign Magnanimity

         

It appears that the Malian political crisis has come to a crest.

The AP reports:

     Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo emerged from his office inside the military barracks that has served the de facto seat of government for the past 16 days, ever since he and his men stormed the presidential palace, reversing over two decades of democratic rule.

Flanked by the ministers of neighboring nations, he read out the accord, which states that under Article 36 of Mali's constitution the head of the national assembly becomes interim president in the event of a vacancy of power.

"In the event of the vacancy of the president of the republic for whatever reason, or due to any absolute and definitive impediment," Sanogo said, "the functions of the president of the republic will be exercised by the president of the National Assembly."

In theory, Sanogo will abdicate to Dioncounda Traoré – the National Assembly President who fled Mali when the coup began, and until now was hiding in Burkina Faso.

            Insofar as resolving the political crisis of existential proportions, this development is certainly a welcome one. If Sanogo actually lives up to this agreement and abdicates power, it appears that Mali’s democratic government, as established in the 1992 Constitution, will hold at least titular power. It appears that ECOWAS will drop the total embargo on land-locked Mali, and the economic situation might not hurtle towards the famine it was heading towards only last week. Now the Malian people might only suffer a merely terrible food crisis.

As Malians can describe the (relatively) good news, “doni doni”; literally, “little by little.” As Dr. Leo Marvin advised his patient in What About Bob?, “baby steps.”

However, there are still a number of caveats to this welcome turn of events. First and foremost is the fact that Capt. Sanogo and his CNRDRE henchman have demonstrated to the world that any written agreement they stamp is not worth the paper it’s printed on. CNRDRE announced a new Constitution on March 28th, only to repeal it on April 1st. Sanogo announced a constitutional convention, only to cancel it a few days later. Thusfar, it appears that not one of Sanogo’s public statements has contained an iota of veracity. The default assumption should be that Sanogo is lying through his teeth at all times.

So, let’s assume that this one time is the exception to the rule, and Capt. Sanogo does in fact abdicate power in favor of the former leader of the Malian National Assembly. There still remain a number of fundamental matters which must be resolved in order to determine whether this return to democracy is in fact genuine or merely the application of lipstick on a pig. After all, more than a year out since the world-historical protests in Tahrir Square, Mubarak stepped down but Egyptians are still ruled by an unelected military regime.

First and foremost, Amadou Haya Sanogo has not announced the exact date of the proposed transition of power. He could postpone this transition indefinitely. As riders on the Malian bus system know too well, one can pay for bus fare at 6:00 AM and be told the bus leaves “soni” (soon), “peut-êti” 7:00, and the bus handlers will push back the departure time until 8:00, then 12:00. The bus might leave the station at 6:00 PM, but it might break down after an hour on the road, and the passengers might spend the night on the curb.

            It remains uncertain whether the Traoré presidency will be a clean break with the CNRDRE junta. It is quite possible that the mutineers in the Kati barracks see this as is a power-sharing agreement rather than an unconditional surrender. Mali is a haggling culture, and a merchant with the goods in hand would be considered a fool to simply accede to his bargaining partner’s price without getting anything in return. Capt. Sanogo has the keys to the ship of state, and he is almost certainly angling for what he must regard as just compensation; perhaps a big wad of cash, a plum job in the military command, and a number of CNRDRE soldiers in the interregnum and the next democratically-elected administration – that is, if there is another democratically-elected administration. An administration composed of Dioncounda Traoré as the titular head of state but CNRDRE toadies calling the shots from behind the curtain would  constitute only superficial change.

Sanogo has not announced when the next presidential election will take place. Sanogo & Co. created a crisis just before the planned elections. As of three weeks ago, the election was scheduled for April 29th. Amadou Toumani Touré was a lame duck on his swan song. Democracy was just about to function right on schedule before CNRDRE somehow contrived a way to gum up the works. One cannot reiterate too many times just how much the March 21st coup was completely useless and absolutely unnecessary for any purpose whatsoever. It has achieved nothing.

Even if Mali were to hold presidential elections, the questions remains as to what kind of Mali the president would govern. It appears that the Malian government exercises sovereignty over a rump state consisting of Koulikoro, Kayes, Sikasso, Ségou and part of Mopti province – in which 13 million Malians live. The Tuaregs have unquestioned control over Kidal, Gao, Timbuktu and the other swath of Mopti province – home to only 1.3 million. Likewise, if there is to be a presidential election, it remains unclear whether those 1.3 million in Tuareg Country would be eligible to vote. Would Mali extend absentee ballots to loyalist Songraï, Tuareg, Fula and Moor citizens in the Azawad – effectively claiming sovereignty over these territories? Or would the MNLA disenfranchise their newfound subjects from the Malian elections? It is also quite conceivable that Ansar al-Din could commit mass atrocities Sierra Leone-style against Malian loyalists if they do try to vote. The folks who have instituted Sharia law in Azawad territory have already abducted and raped girls, it’s not far-fetched that they might use the threat of slavery to extort submission and dissuade participation in the vote.

The ECOWAS/CNRDRE agreement remains unsettled the role of the Malian military in the provisional and future government. The March 21 putschists have dealt democracy a permanent wound by demonstrating that a few disgruntled junior offices can bring down an elected administration by seizing the Presidential Palace, the airport, and the TV station. If there is to be another Malian president in the future, it appears that he or she might have to govern in the shadow of the Kati Army barracks, the fear of another coup d’état always hanging over the presidency’s head like the Sword of Damocles. After the CNRDRE mutiny forced President Touré into hiding, the power of the presidency has been severely diminished. 

Malian democrats now have every reason to remain wary of the Malian military and what it really stands for. It appears that some of the Army corps remains at least facially committed to the territorial integrity of the Republic of Mali. But are they genuinely committed to the Republic of Mali under a bona fide republican government? It looks like Sanogo & Co. would opt for a military regime which governs the Northern territories over a stable, sustainable democracy in the lower four and ½ provinces. Since the political crisis erupted, Malian militaires have demonstrated more interest for political jockeying and looting than they have for defending any segment of the civilian population. Even after they had carte blanche from Kati, the soldiers in the North crumbled like dust before MNLA and Ansar al-Din and gave up Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu without putting up a fight.

I hate to say it, but one should also be genuinely concerned about the status of democracy amongst the Malian people. There appears to be a significant swath of Malian public opinion, disproportionately Sanogos and other Senaful clans, who supported the coup as a matter of tribal fidelity, disillusionment with ATT, and general dissatisfaction with the government. Democracy is not getting everything you want when you want it. Using violent force to effect change might be popular, it might be excusable to resist a foreign military occupation, but it's not democratic. Democracy is a system of elections, legislatures, courts, and other constitutional institutions through which citizens can effect change, often over the course of years and decades. So long as there remains a significant bloc of the electorate that can’t wait 39 days, and could willingly sacrifice a constitutional government in order to depose a president whom they don’t like, one must question those persons’ commitment to democracy and the rule of law. 

Mali is not going to be a democratic regime again until it is governed by a civilian administration brought to office by free and fair elections. So long as Capt. Sanogo and CNRDRE are anywhere near the halls of power, Malian democracy will remain compromised by the fear of a renegade military and the politics of extortion. Sanogo must step down as soon as possible, and the CNRDRE ought to disband root and branch. Though CNRDRE insisted upon an amnesty stipulation in the agreement with ECOWAS, these renegade soldiers committed amongst the greatest crimes that soldiers can commit: mutiny, treason, dereliction of duty, holding political prisoners, orchestrating violence against critics, looting and pillaging government buildings and civilian merchants. Note that the ECOWAS/CNRDRE agreement was signed between some mutineering Malian soldiers and neighboring West African states; the legitimate government of Mali was not party to this agreement, and it appears dubious whether ECOWAS has the power to grant amnesty to Malian soldiers for crimes committed exclusively on Malian soil. If future Malian governments never prosecute these outlaw soldiers for their wanton crimes, it will send the message that members of the military can subvert the law and desecrate the Constitution with impunity - and Malian democracy will long remain in a precarious position.

Captain Sanogo and CNRDRE Create an Economic Catastrophe

             Amidst the sudden coup d’état and disintegration of military positions in Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu, the international media has begun to accord the West African nation of Mali its share of due attention. However, beyond the capital city of Bamako, behind the frontlines of the North, a tremendously more consequential and lethal but less photogenic drama is about to unfold in the towns and villages which constitute the majority of the Malian population. Absent a sudden turn of events, a completely unnecessary, man-made catastrophe is about to unfold, and the international community can do little but watch as it all happens in slow motion.  

            The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has given the CNRDRE mutineers a 72 hour ultimatum; either step down and abdicate all powers which they now illegitimately control, or the regional organization is about to shut Mali off from all international trade. If CNDRE does not abdicate power, the ECOWAS nations – including the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Guinea, and Niger – are going to close their borders and restrict all trade with Mali – a land-locked nation. ECOWAS will suspend Mali’s account at the regional central bank, shutting it off from cash reserves. The deadline for this ultimatum is Sunday night.

Observing what is about to happen to the Malian economy is akin to watching a car speed down a two-lane highway and a much larger vehicle is driving in the same lane straight towards it, for one brief moment you can see exactly how this head-on collision is going to occur, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

To understand what these sanctions are going to do to exacerbate the misery of an already impoverished nation, one must understand the Malian economy in this particular stage of development. Mali’s economy is already the third- or fourth-poorest in the world, with a per capita GDP of only $1,300. The vast majority of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture of millet, sorghum, rice and corn. This year even the rural farming class is beset by a massive food shortage as precipitation last year’s growing season was pitiful. Malian farmers call the time of year before the millet harvest in September “hungry season” because the cereals stored in their granaries is now down to the last dregs, and many families reduce their consumption to one meal a day. This year, “hungry season” has already begun for many families in March – and the next harvest is six months away.

To boot, hundreds of thousands of Tuaregs and Songraï from the North have fled from the advancing MNLA forces, creating a crisis of refugees and internally-displaced persons where a population of displaced farmers can’t farm, and their reluctant hosts don’t have food to feed them. Already, absent any government interventions, Mali is facing one of the worst food crises in a generation. Rice is now hovering around 400 to 500 CFA a kilo (~$1), which is a lot seeing that that 500 CFA is a good full day's wage in a country where very few people are even employed in the formal sector, and each wage-earner has to support between 1 and 4 wives, each with an average of 7.4 children per woman, as well as his parents, grandparents, and extended family.

A food crisis is more complicated than a mere shortage of food. During the Great Global Food Crisis of 2009, there was millet and rice in Malian markets, it was there to purchase. However, due to a global shock caused by a devastating drought in Australia, stockpiling by Thailand, speculation on the global commodities markets, the price for rice soared around the world. In just any plain food crisis, the market in food is so shocked by a massive spike in prices that a significant swath of the population cannot afford to buy it. A spike in the price of rice has a dire affects among the population of consumers who purchase all of the food they eat – namely, the urbanites of Bamako, Ségou, Sikasso, Mopti, Gao and Timbuktu. But the 2009 Global Food Crisis was not so bad for the country folk who grew most if not all of the food they eat – in fact, it was a good year for a number of farmers who could demand more money in exchange for surplus grains.   

But this food crisis of 2012 is a monster of its own. This time, there is actually a great, endogenous shortage of millet, sorghum, corn, rice, and everything else. The people who farm cereals did not produce enough to feed themselves - let alone sell a surplus they don't have. A lot of subsistence farmers are dipping into their seed corn and slaughtering their draft animals. Many otherwise subsistence farmers are now forced to sell what little they have of economic value – cows, goats, sons, daughters – to purchase their food at market.

To fathom the impact of the impending ECOWAS sanctions on Mali, one must appreciate the absolute precariousness of the already-existing humanitarian crisis. When I call my friends in my erstwhile home, they tell me “the villagers are running out of millet, rice is too expensive to buy.” Rice is now between 400 and 500 CFA/kilo, but it is feared that that price might skyrocket to 1500 CFA/kilo. The Malian economy is already so impoverished that it is difficult to imagine how much more miserable it can become. We are about to find out.   

The Malian agricultural sector does not produce enough food to adequately feed its own population, so the food economy is significantly dependent on rice and other foodstuffs imported across the borders with the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Senegal, and Guinea. If the nations of the ECOWAS bloc close their borders to Mali, all Malian imports of rice, corn, and all other foodstuffs will cease (but for the inevitable black market). Mali’s food crisis will deepen even further.

The Malian economy is completely dependent on imported gasoline which is shipped from the Persian Gulf to the port of Abidjan, then trucked overland across the Ivory Coast to the Malian border. As of Saturday, March 31, the price of gasoline had already spiked from 750 to 2000 CFA per liter. Without gasoline, transport and commerce will come to a standstill beyond the local village economy, what little goods can be sold by foot, bicycle, donkey cart, and canoe. Mali’s urban population of roughly 3 million, entirely dependent upon a commercial economy, without any fields to farm, are going to suffer as Malian commerce completely and utterly collapses into a subsistence economy.

            In addition, ECOWAS is about to freeze Mali’s account at the central bank from which the Malian Ministry of the Treasury receives its currency to put into circulation. If all goes as planned, on Monday the various private banks of Mali will have no more bills and coins to distribute to account holders when they come to withdraw money. Last week, the banks were already like a scene out of It’s a Wonderful Life; people are waiting in lines 50 people deep to withdraw from their accounts, and the banks are telling patrons that they can withdraw a maximum of 500,000 CFA (~$1,000). By Monday or Tuesday, the banks will have no currency to distribute at all. Soldiers in the Malian Army, gendarmes, all civil servants and teachers will be unable to cash their paychecks.

The point of the ECOWAS sanctions on Mali is to replicate what occurred in the Ivory Coast last year when dictator Laurent Gbagbo refused to abdicate power to the elected president Alassane Ouattara, and ECOWAS froze the Ivorian account. Without the power of the paycheck, the pro-Gbagbo forces demonstrated that their loyalty was contingent upon a paycheck, and they lost all will to fight. Some innocent people suffered, but Gbagbo fell within a few weeks.  

If ECOWAS does in fact impose crushing sanctions on Mali beginning this next Monday, one might hope that the embargo succeeds in achieving its intended goal: Sanogo & Co. step down as soon as possible. However, there remains the distinct possibility that the CNRDRE mutineers cling to power for an extended period of time, during which the Malian people are going to suffer dearly. Even after the disaster of collectivized agriculture, the droughts of the 1970s and 80s, this impoverished nation might know a period of deprivation unlike no other.

Capt. Sanogo and the CNRDRE junta apparently don’t care. In judging his reaction to recent events, is clear that in Sanogo and his junta have only contempt for the international community and brazen disregard for the Malian people whom they purportedly govern.

Make no mistake; the ECOWAS sanctions on Mali are not the result of other states' "imperialism", but the inevitable conclusion of the CNRDRE mutineers' virulent conduct towards its  economic partners. The junta showed its true colors by preventing a delegation of ECOWAS heads of state from landing their planes. Planes carrying the respective presidents and prime ministers of Ivory Coast¸ Burkina Faso, Niger, Liberia, and Benin were in en route to Bamako to meet with the CNRDRE faction to diffuse the politica crisis, when they turned around amidst reports of a security breach at the Bamako airport. The press reported that the airport runway had been taken over by a violent demonstration of junta supporters. Read between the lines; the Bamako airport is one of the few government installations which the CNRDRE mutineers tangibly control; they have prevented almost all planes from coming or going since the coup began. "These protesters... couldn't have got to the runway if the military didn't want them to," says Bruce Whitehouse, an anthropology professor at Lehigh University. In other words, instead of negotiating with ECOWAS presidents and prime ministers, Sanogo & Co. chose to orchestrate a threat on their lives in order to prevent a dialogue from even commencing.

Therefore, the Presidents of Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso and Benin did not come to Bamako to negotiate with CNDRE to step down because CNDRE effectively threatened to assassinate them if they landed at the Bamako airport These are not grown-ups we are dealing with, but children armed with AK-47s. The New York Times reports that when ECOWAS met to issue its threat of sanctions on Thursday, a senior advisor to Ivorian President Alassane Ouattara said that Capt. Sanogo’s reaction to the regional body was "basically the equivalent of telling us (fuck) you.”

            As Capt. Sanogo and his cohorts jostle with the ship of state as though it is their plaything, 14 and half million Malian civilians are going to suffer as the collateral damage of a few warlords’ lust for power and wealth. It is not out of hand to predict that tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and particularly children are going to die needless deaths in a completely man-made famine, all but proving Amartya Sen's thesis that famines don't occur in democracies. The cruelest element of this catastrophe is that it is not a matter of natural cause and happenstance, but the will of a few evil men.  

The New Constitution of Mali: A Fig Leaf for Military Dictatorship

            In the wake of the coup d’état in Mali, the CNRDRE mutineer government has paid lip service to democracy. Capt. Amadou Sanogo speaks as though he is manifesting the will of the Malian people to crush the Tuareg insurrection in the North, to improve education, and do away with corruption in government. However, in substance, Sanogo and his CNRDRE cadres have effectively established a one man dictatorship and a military junta in the wake of the democratic regime which existed from 1993 to March 22, 2012.

            On March 28, Magistrate Lt. Jacques Koné of CNRDRE came on the ORTM television network to read aloud a new “constitution” line for line. It would be a gross understatement to say that this document, slapped together in the handful of days since the coup on March 22, was drafted with something less than the republican ethos of the Constitution of 1992.  

The new constitution reaffirms the most superficial aspects of the Republic of Mali’s former Constitution of 1992; that the name of the country is “La Republique du Mali”, that the capital is in Bamako, that the flag shall be composed of three stripes, red, gold and green. Though the 2012 Constitution attaches foremost importance rhetorical emphasis on the language of independence, democracy, and territorial integrity, in reality - of course - the new regime lacks 2 out of 3 of those qualities.

The Constitution of 2012 also pays lip-service to human rights and civil liberties. Article 7 through 31 intone that “human life is sacred”,  enshrines freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of art and culture, freedom from torture, the right to property, the right to work, the right to unionize, the right to strike. It even creates some positive rights; namely, the right to education, health care and jobs. When the government of a country with abysmal access to health care and crushing unemployment enshrines a constitutional right to universal health care and employment, it makes one wonder how serious they really take any of the words of this document.

For instance, Article 25 of the new Constitution protects "freedom of association, meeting, and demonstration." However the new junta has already demonstrated that it has no toleration for any such thing. In at least two instances, plainclothes thugs attacked peaceful demonstrators protesting the coup. At the most signficant occurence, at a major rally at the labor exchange, a group of CNRDRE goons arrived, throwing rocks at the demonstrators and beating them with sticks. Of course, as the assailants did not wear uniforms it is unclear for sure whether or not they acting as private individuals or as agents of the CNRDRE regime; however common sense and recent history in Egypt, Libya, and Syria suggests the latter.  

Acting on their promise to improve the ethics of the Malian government, Article 35 Constitution prohibits “sabotage, vandalism, corruption, and illicit enrichment” from governmental service. In other words, the junta that only days ago looted the Presidential Palace has a remarkable sense of chutzpah.

More troubling than CNRDRE’s sacking of the home of the legal, then-incumbent head of state is the fact that the new constitutional sacking of the very tenet of constitutionalism; namely, separation of powers. In marked contrast with the 1992 Constitution, which preserved a civilian presidency and an independent judiciary, the 2012 Constitution names the President the head of government, the military, and the judiciary. The President has exclusive authority to make foreign and military policy – which makes sense for a military junta. The President has the prerogative to appoint the Prime Minister. The new constitution grants CNRDRE – an appendage of the President-apparent Sanogo – legislative powers, as well as powers to change the Constitution. It appears that the President will make decrees, and the military and the judiciary will enforce them. 

To demonstrate just how little Capt. Sanogo & Co. appreciate the concept of accountability in government, the “Constitution” of March 28, 2012 also grants the President explicit power to grant amnesty to members of CNRDRE. In other words, the Constitution grants blanket immunity to the leaders of the coup - whose members have committed treason against a democratic government, looted the presidential palace, committed widespread theft in Bamako, has made scores of political arrests of government ministers and presidential candidates and continues to hold them as political prisoners, and that has left three people dead thusfar.

            Notably absent from the new Malian Constitution is any language pertaining to voting or elections. Of course, that should not be an issue until the CNRDRE regime holds elections – as Capt. Sanago promises – after it "secures the country" in the North, fixes longstanding problems in the military, education, corruption in government. The Tuareg rebellion began in earnest in 1962, and the government has been suppressing it on and off for the past half-century. Mali's endemic problems in education and corruption will take many multiple generations to reform. In other words, I wouldn't hold my breath.

            The Constitution does mention the National Assembly, which CNRDRE declared dissolved as of last week. It appears that CNDRE has taken their place as the legislative branch of government – that is, unelected and an entirely indifferentiable appendage of the presidency.

If you connect the dots, the 2012 "Constitution" is nothing of the kind. It is the putschists’ self­-declaration of authority to rule the territory of Mali and the Malian people, substituting their own manifestation of the popular will for the consent of the people derived from elections – which were scheduled for April 29th. It establishes a government of the mutineers, by the mutineers, for the mutineers – all in the name of the “Restoration of Democracy.” The new “Constitution” is merely a fig leaf for an unchecked military dictatorship which has no interest in the rule of law, no respect for constitutionalism, and has no interest in restoring democratic government anytime in the foreseeable future.

A Requiem for Malian Democracy (1993-2012)

             As I write this, the Sun is just coming up in my former home of Diaramana, in the erstwhile Republic of Mali. The first call to prayer has already been issued. It is hot season now, too dry to do much farm work. But the women are already busy at work, pounding away at millet to cook a simple porridge for their family’s breakfast. This year their porridge is much leaner because there is a food crisis; it might be the family’s sole meal for the day. This year’s sharp rise in grain prices is partly because last rainy season’s rains were pitiful. But the real reason grain prices are so harshly inflated is because hundreds of thousands of families have fled from the fighting in the North - food becomes rather scarce when an ethnic insurgency creates a refugee crisis and a subsistence agriculturalist population can’t farm.

            Though the Sun is just now rising, today might be the darkest day in the history of this young nation. Though it is still too soon to say for sure, today, March 22, 2012, may mark the death of Malian democracy. A group of mutinous soldiers calling themselves the NCRDRS, led by a certain Capt. Amadou Sanogo, appears to have achieved a coup d’état. In a matter of hours, the mutinous soldiers have seized the state television and radio network ORTM, wrested and looted the presidential palace, and arrested numerous government ministers.

 NCRDRS has used ORTM to  announce that they have suspended the Malian Constitution and dissolved all "state institutions" i.e. the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and - notably - the special high courts which exist specifically to try government officials for treason.

            To understand the import of these events, one must contextualize them in Mali's 51½ years as an independent state.

            Between independence in 1960 and 1991, Mali was governed by strongmen.  Modibo Keíta first ran the country as a First Wave post-colonialist state, conducted a disastrous experiment in African socialism and collectivist agriculture, and suffered humiliating losses to the Tuareg rebels. In 1968, Lt. Moussa Traoré led a military coup against Keíta and seized control of the Malian state - which he grafted and embezzled as his personal fiefdom for almost a quarter century. Traoré's one positive contribution was his system of decentralisation in which he established a federalist-style system of local governments on the level of Region, Cercle, and Commune;  they were still for the most part as corrupt as sin - but at least the corruption was local. Traoré even allowed elections in the local governments, but only one party (his) was on the ballot.  

But something profound happened in 1991, when paratrooper commander Amadou Toumani Touré in turn deposed the President of Mali. “ATT”, as he is popularly known, declared that he would organize multiparty elections in 1993, that he would not be a candidate, and that he would step down from office. And remarkably enough, Touré did exactly that.

           In 2002, Touré ran for the presidency himself as an independent candidate. Having shown that he respected republican institutions enough that he could do the unthinkable and relinquish power without a fight, ATT won election handily. The Malian people called him “le Soldat de la Democratie”; he allowed free, multiparty elections, promoted freedom of the press and political rights for women. Sure, Touré had his faults – over ten years, his administration was criticized for political cronyism; he made some major military blunders regarding the rebellion in the North, and he was famously aloof from public opinion. But ATT never rigged any elections, he never took political prisoners. He was an authentic democrat who planned to abide by  the constitutional term limits, step down again at the end of his second term, and go back to tilling his millet fields like a Malian George Washington.  

Malian democracy (1993 – 2012), as established by President Touré, has had its share of hiccups and bumps in the road. It was of course difficult to establish a democratic culture in a country where the bulk of the population lives in small villages, often quite far from the nearest polling stations. The vast majority of the population is illiterate, and only a small minority has completed a high school education. It would be an understatement to say that corruption, cronyism, and general incompetence in local government are all quite common. 

When I was working with the Office of the Mayor of the Commune, I kept on submitting typed policy proposals to the Mayor for water projects. He would look at my drafts for a few minutes, nod, and hand them back to me. "Perfect! No problems!", he would say. It took me a few months to realize that the Mayor - a guy whose job was to type up official government documents - was completely illiterate. If he didn't have a stamp with his name on it, he signed his name with an "X." It follows that Monsieur la Mairie was not very effective at typing birth certificates and marriage certificates on his typewriter. But if the majority of the population of a given Commune is illiterate, the important thing is that the people have the right to choose which among their illiterate fellow citizens gets to serve in public office - that's the beauty of democracy.

On the other hand, there are a number of outstanding public servants in Mali who are dedicated to the cause they serve. I have met with village chiefs and advisory councils who lead their communities in the daily struggle of subsistence and development. I have worked with Malian water committees who valued improving their environment and quality of life.  Most importantly, I have plenty of teachers and principals who are earnestly dedicated to teaching the next generation of Malians to be educated and capable citizens.

 Not everyone in public life is involved for altruistic reasons, there are a number of politicians who are just looking for a lucrative source of income - those are some of the outstanding problems in Malian politics. But there are some people in Malian history who have risen to the top and have demonstrated their capacity for leadership in a democratic society; namely President Amadou Toumani Touré, who planned to step down after his second term this spring. Among the candidates running for President in the elections scheduled for April 29th include Modibo Sidibé, a former Prime Minister, Sidibé Aminata Diallo, a former Minister of Education, Oumar Mariko, a member of Parliament,  Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, another former Prime Minister, former speaker of the National Assembly, and Cheick Modibo Diarra, a Malian astrophysicist who worked at NASA and Microsoft Africa.

Warts and all, the Malian experience in electoral democracy has been considerably successful.  They have conducted four presidential elections, and a fifth is scheduled for April. Especially on the level of Communal government (the equivalent of a county), much of the population personally interacts with their elected Mayor. When I lived in Diaramana, my host mother Durcas Dembele ran in the Mayoral primary, and she rode from village to village on her motorcycle stumping for votes. In the end, Durcas lost among the nine candidates on the primary ballot.

In April 2009, le Commune de Diaramana held its general elections at the primary school. People came from every village in the Commune dressed in their finest clothes to vote for their Mayor. Election Day has become a national holiday woven into the fabric of Malian society.


An independent committee of active citizens conducted the balloting process and made sure that each citizen is registered to vote in the Commune. The voters dipped their fingers in purple ink to mark their ballot. Because so few people can read, the ballot was listed by party and each party’s line was marked by its official symbol; ADEMA is a bumblebee, SADI is a lion, etc.


Each citizen casted his or her vote in privacy.


My good friend Sidiki showed off his purple ink-stained fingers. In a country where democratic self-government has only truly existed for 19 years, voting is a matter of great pride. Sidiki wouldn’t tell me whom he voted for, because the principle of confidentiality is taken so seriously.

            The great tragedy of this coup is not just that an elected President has fallen, subverting the will of the people. The tragedy is that with the declaration of the suspension of the Constitution and the dissolution of all state instutions, the NCRDRS may have permanently extinguished the fire of Malian democracy. All of these institutions of representative self-government which the Malian people have been developing for decades may have been stamped out by a new military junta.

              It is difficult enough to eke out a living farming in the parched Sahel. It is even more difficult when the heavy hand of a tyrannical government oppresses the people with extortion, bribery, graft, embezzlement, and exorbitant taxation to fund a war that many analysts say cannot be won. That is why, in order to facilitate sustainable development and improve their standard of living, the people of Mali must be able to guide their own destiny with a truly representative self-government.

The people of Mali do not have very much. They are one of the very poorest nations in the world. But one thing that they did have was democracy.

They will have it once again, insh’allah.

Ala k'aw deme.

Ala ka here caya.

Ala k'a ban pyu pyu.