Nation Building in South Africa

University of KwaZulu-Natal Main Campus.

South Africa is an incredibly diverse country, with 11 official languages and dozens of distinct ethnic groups. Zulu is the mother tongue for approximately 23 percent of South Africa’s population, but is spoken by about 80 percent of the population of the province of KwaZulu-Natal.

As a legacy of the apartheid era, much of South African education takes place in English, particularly at the university level. But even at the primary school level, UKZN Vice-Chancellor Renuka Vithal noted that, “You can come through the schooling system without learning any of the indigenous African languages. It is surprising that this is still the case, nearly 20 years after apartheid [racially-enforced segregation] ended.”

The language question in South Africa, as in many other developing countries, is closely tied to the question of national identity. While Zulu is the most common mother tongue in South Africa, Xhosa (16%), Afrikaans (14%), English (10%), Sepedi (9%), Setswana (8%), and Sesotho (8%) are also widely spoken.

Because the postcolonial boundaries often amalgamated a wide variety of national groups, boundaries between the nation and the state rarely corresponded. Postcolonial governments thus faced a challenge of developing a common sense of identity across a variety of national and ethnic groups. This was often referred to as nation-building. But national identity cents on a wide variety of variables: religious beliefs, traditions, and customs, shared history, a common language, and so on.

While UKZN’s move was welcomed by some, others argued that the move was just a political ploy to garner the favor of South African President Jacob Zuma, who is Zulu.

What do you think? Is the kind of common language education being imposed by UKZN necessary for nation-building in South Africa? Or does it violate the rights and freedom of students to chart their own course of study? Take the poll or leave a comment below and let us know what you think.

Destabilizing the Syrian Crisis

Russian Yakhont Anti-Ship Missile

Quoting unnamed US officials, the New York Times today reported that Russia has sent sophisticated anti-ship missiles to Syria as part of a longstanding arms trade agreement. The missiles, known as the Yakhont, are radar-guided, supersonic missiles, with a range of 75 to 185 miles, and intended for coastal defense.

The shipment raises concerns about the viability of intervention in the Syrian crisis. The Yakhont system has advanced radar guidance systems that would enable the missile to evade ship defenses. The United States argues that the missile system would force any potential naval operations further off Syria’s coasts.

Beyond the potential impact on foreign intervention in the Syrian crisis, BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus argues that the missile system is significant for two reasons.

First, by following through on the sale agreed to in 2007, Russia demonstrates its ongoing support for and commitment to the Syrian regime. The sale highlights Russia’s desire to prevent possible Western intervention. It also suggests that Russia would likely oppose efforts to secure approval for such intervention through the United Nations Security Council.

Second, the sale may also raise concerns on the part of Israel about the potential transfer of weapons from Syria to its Hezbollah allies in Syria. Israel has already warned Syria that such a transfer would cross red line that could prompt a new wave of Israeli airstrikes against Syrian forces.

What do you think? Could Russia’s weapon sales to Syria undermine potential resolution of the Syrian crisis? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.

Weekly Quiz: Test Yourself on This Week’s Events

The weekly quiz is now live. Good luck!

The 400 ppm CO2 Milestone

Climate scientists yesterday warned that the earth had crossed an important milestone. For the first time in 3 million years, the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million. The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene era, when temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher and the earth was in a middle of a prolonged warm period.

It’s important to remember that the 400 ppm figure is a bit arbitrary. CO2 levels have been flirting with the 400 ppm level for several months. But the overall upward trend in CO2 levels does pose reason for concern. Scientists warn that failure to stabilize CO2 levels at less than 450 ppm could have catastrophic climate effects. But over the past fifty years, CO2 levels have been on a steady upward march (see graph below), and they show no signs of leveling off.

 

Carbon dioxide levels can be seen climbing steadily in Scripps data from the last 55 years.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

But reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere presents a classic free rider dilemma. Collectively, we face dramatic consequences: increasingly erratic weather patterns, declining overall food productivity, rising sea levels, desertification, and so on. But any individual country’s actions are unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall trend. Thus it is in every country’s individual self-interest to continue business as usual, and rely on other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, they capture all of the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while paying none of the costs. Every state behaving in a rational and self-interested way leads to the worst possible outcome—a classic example of the prisoners’ dilemma.

Yet we also know that there are several strategies to overcome the prisoners’ dilemma. Iteration (repeated plays) and communication (which leads to confidence building and trust) can overcome the otherwise nihilistic outcomes of the dilemma. The question, of course, is whether or not governments can work to overcome the dilemma in time to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

What do you think? Will governments be able to collectively address the challenges posed by climate change? Or are we locked into a nihilistic outcome, as the prisoners’ dilemma would suggest? Take the poll or leave a comment below and let us know what you think.

Truth and Reconciliation: The Global Politics of Justice

Bethuel Kiplagat, Chair of Kenya’s Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission in 2010.

The BBC is reporting that a long-awaited report investigating violence and human rights abuses in Kenya will recommend some prosecutions of key officials for their roles. The Truth Reconciliation and Justice Commission was established in the aftermath of post-election violence that rocked Kenya following the 2008 presidential elections. However, its mandate was broader and included looking at past injustices from the Kenyan independence in December 1963 through the disputed February 2008 elections. According to the BBC’s coverage, Ahmed Sheikh Farah, who sat on the committee, indicated that “victims would be happy” with the recommendations but also warned that “we have been centered on reconciliation—healing, unity, that kind of focus.”

The report comes at an interesting time in Kenya’s political history. About six weeks ago, Uhuru Kenyatta won the presidency and was sworn into office. However, Kenyatta has been charged by the International Criminal Court with orchestrating some of the violence following the last presidential election. That violence resulted in more than 1,500 deaths and displaced more than 300,000 people from their homes.

Truth and reconciliation commissions are interesting instruments. They are generally charged with revealing wrongdoing rather than achieving justice per se. And they have been growing in popularity in recent

Archbishop Desmond Tutu presides over South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

years. One of the earliest was Argentina’s National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (the Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, or CONADEP). CONADEP was established shortly after the collapse of Argentina’s military government in 1983, and was charged with investigating the fate of the estimated 30,000 persons who were “disappeared” by the Argentine government between 1976 and 1983. Perhaps the most famous was South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which was established in 1995 and was charged with witnessing and recording the crimes and human rights abuses committed by both state and opposition forces during the apartheid era. Other notable examples include Brazil’s Comissão Nacional da Verdade, which is currently investigating human rights abuses by the country’s former military government, and Canada’s Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is currently investigating human rights abuses in the country’s residential school system for the Canada’s first nations.

Most truth and reconciliation commissions represent an effort to expand understanding rather that to achieve justice. They generally lack the power to prosecute offenders. Indeed, in many cases, like the South African TRC, individuals offering testimony before the commission were generally granted amnesty for any confessions they offered. The emphasis, in other words, is on promoting transparency and providing a historical record and testimony rather than on achieving justice in the traditional sense. But this also a source of controversy, as victims can sometimes feel as though the perpetrators of violence and human rights abuses can escape punishment.

What do you think? Do truth commissions represent an instrument of justice by witnessing and providing a historical record of human rights abuses? Or do they undermine justice by permitting human rights abusers to escape criminal prosecution? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.

Weekly Quiz: Test Yourself on This Week’s Events

Weekly Quiz: Test Yourself on This Week’s Events

Happy World Press Freedom Day!

Friday, May 3 is World Press Freedom Day. In observation, Reporters Without Borders produced this map exploring the scope of press freedom around the world.

Most of the findings of the accompanying report  are not particularly surprising… Places experiencing civil unrest and or home to oppressive regimes are pretty bad places to be a journalist. Witness the poor rankings of countries like North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Iran, and Eritrea. The report also notes that 2012 was the deadliest year for journalists worldwide, with some 103 journalists killed, at least 70 of which were killed directly because of their work.

What is interesting, though, the report’s discussion of the impact of the Arab Spring. The report observes that,

After the “Arab springs” and other protest movements that prompted many rises and falls in last year’s index, the 2013 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index marks a return to a more usual configuration. The ranking of most countries is no longer attributable to dramatic political developments. This year’s index is a better reflection of the attitudes and intentions of governments towards media freedom in the medium or long term.”

The report notes that nearly three years after the Arab Spring began, the Middle East region still remains in last place in terms of press freedom. Only one country (Kuwait) places above 100^th place globally, with most falling much further in the rankings.

• Syria, 176^th Place
• Iran, 174^th
• Yemen, 171^st
• Bahrain, 165^th
• Saudi Arabia, 163^rd Egypt, 158^th
• Iraq, 150^th
• Oman, 141^st
• Tunisia, 138^th
• Morocco, 136^th
• Jordan, 134^th
• Libya, 131^st
• Algeria, 125^th
• United Arab Emirates, 114^th
• Lebanon, 101^st
• Kuwait, 77^th

What do you think? Are you surprised by the lack of press freedoms in the Middle East despite the Arab Spring? Would you have expected the Arab Spring to generate a higher level of concern over freedom of the press? Take the poll or leave a comment below and let us know what you think.

(Near) Final Thoughts on the Social Science Research Question

Blogging at the Monkey Cage, John Sides posted extensive comments from John Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology. Holdren’s speech suggests that the White House is starting to weigh in on the House’s attack on the value of social science research. According to Holdren,

Members of Congress have recently suggested, variously, either that the social sciences are not really science and should not be supported by the taxpayers at all; or that research in political science, at least, should only be supported if the NSF will certify to Congress, for each grant, that the research will advance either the economy or national security (a provision now actually embodied in law in the most recent Continuing Resolution governing spending for the remainder of FY13); or that all taxpayer-funded research should have to pass the test of offering a predictable benefit for some national interest.

Let me therefore be clear about the position of this Administration, as President Obama was in his remarks on Monday at the 150th anniversary meeting of the National Academy of Science.

First, the social and behavioral sciences—which of course include economics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology, as well as political science—are sciences. Researchers in these fields develop and test hypotheses; they publish results in peer-reviewed journals; and they archive data for so that others can replicate their results.

Second, while much of the work in these sciences meets the definition of basic research – expanding our understanding of ourselves and our surroundings – much work in the social and behavioral sciences is aimed at having (or ends up having without being aimed that way) practical application to society’s direct benefit.

Political science research helps us understand the motives and actions of nations and peoples around the world, strengthening our foreign policy, and it helps understand our own democracy and how to make it stronger. Economics research has clarified not only the economic importance of innovation but also its determinants, which in turn have helped us craft policies that effectively promote innovation and thus economic growth.

Social and behavioral research has helped us make hurricane warnings more effective, improve methods of instruction and training in school and in the workplace, and manage commons resources efficiently without centralized regulation. And it has taught us that social-distancing strategies, like staying home from work or school, can be a crucial complement to vaccination strategies when it comes to breaking the transmission of influenza from person to person.

Here’s hoping the House starts to see things his way.

The full transcripts of Holdren’s remarks at the American Association for the Advancement of Science are available here.

Collecting Economic Data

The US Capitol, Washington, DC

It seems that House’s war on (political) science is not yet over. House Resolution 1638, The Census Reform Act of 2013, was introduced yesterday. If passed, the legislation would prohibit the U.S. Census from collecting any information beyond the Constitutionally-mandated decennial population count. Specifically, it would end collection of the U.S. agricultural census, the government census, the mid-decade census, and the American Community Survey. The United States, in other words, would lack basic economic data, such as the unemployment rate and the gross domestic product measures which are calculated using data collected by the Census Bureau.

There are many countries which lack regular reporting of basic economic data. In many African countries, for example, annual GDP reports are calculated using base year estimates and an annual multiplier adjustment calculated from a few key indicators. The problem is that the further we move from the base year, the mess accurate the economic measures become. Indeed, the problem was so pronounced in Nigeria that a 2012 revision added nearly $100 billion to the national economy overnight, increasing the size of the economy by 40%. The revision was not based on any real change in the country’s economic output—it was certainly not a function of a dramatic level of economic growth. Rather, it was simply a recalculation of the figure based on more up-to-date (and arguably more accurate) data. In 2010, Ghana similarly experienced a 60 percent increase in its GDP.

So does all this matter? Should we worry about the accuracy of GDP figures in the United States? Or unemployment figures, which would be similarly affected by the proposal? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think.

First They Came for the Political Scientists…

Martin Niemoller

An interesting story surfaced in the Huffington Post yesterday. It seems that Congress’ efforts to dictate the research funded by the National Science Foundation is not yet over. As the story notes, the House Science Committee is

making an unprecedented move to require oversight of the scientific research process, pushing a bill that would in effect politicize decisions made by the National Science Foundation… The bill, titled the High Quality Research Act and authored by [House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chair Lamar] Smith, would require the director of the NSF to certify in writing that every grant handed out by the federal agency is for work that is ‘the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and … is not duplicative of other research project being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.’

Smith followed up by requesting NSF Director Cora Marret justify a number of social science studies about which he had expressed concerns.

Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who sits on the committee, fired back with his own letter to Smith.Johnson’s letter argues that,

Rather than entering into [a] dialogue, your letter marks the beginning of an investigative effort, the implications of which are profound. This is the first step on a path that would destroy the merit-based review process at NSF and intrudes political pressure into what is widely viewed as the most effective and creative process for awarding research funds in the world… Interventions in grant awards by political figures with agendas, biases, and no expertise is the antithesis of the peer review process. By making this request, you are sending a chilling message to the entire scientific community that peer review may always be trumped by political review. You also threaten to compromise the anonymity that is crucial to the grant and open exchange of comments and critiques during the review process, and in doing so, further comprise the integrity of the merit review process. How can future participants in the peer review process have confidence that their work will remain confidential with the Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has shown that probing specific awards absent any allegation of wrong-doing may become the way business is done?

The debate raises several important issues around the role of public funding of research, the dangers of politicization of science, and the proper role of regulation in education and scientific research. But as a political scientist, it also makes me wonder why this debate did not occur two months ago, when Congress passed the Coburn Amendment limiting NSF funding for political science research. Reminds me a bit of the Martin Niemöller poem

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

Those wishing to write their respective Representative can find their contact information on the House’s Office of the Clerk Website.