Economy and Policy Reform in China

From 1943 - 1976, Mao Zedong was the chairman of the Chinese Politburo's Standing Committee, the top position in the CCP. Mao held the power in the government, but ruled in a highly personalistic and arbitrary style. Many of his policies were too idealistic and not so helpful. In 1982, after his death in 1976, the title of chairman was abolished, and the party leaders since then (Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao) have governed more as part of a collective leadership with members on the Standing Committee and the Politburo. This change in the distribution and handle on power (from "revolutionary" to "technocratic") has lead to economic reforms and changes in policy making.

Traditionally, people are appointed to government positions by leaders. This means appointment tends to be based on connections and bias, rather than an actual level of qualification. However, in recent years since 2001, there have been moves towards the "professionalizing" of the bureaucracy: making official positions subject to competition through civil service exams, instead of traditional appointment. Not only have civil service exams been implemented, but also a limit on how long officials can serve in the government - something that is unusual for a communist government. The change in appointment of government officials will lead to a change in policy - different ideas and concepts can be brought to government, rather than the same views of those officials party leaders would appoint themselves. Another major change that has affected policy making is the decentralization of government administration and the transfer of power in economic power to provincial and local authorities. And though the centralized power of the CCP still has considerable power over local affairs, this transfer of power allows local authorities to have more control over their own economic issues, which affects the policy making of these local authorities to be more focused on economic affairs. This, essentially, allows these authorities more freedom, to some degree.

Sanctioning Iran

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/01/201011813576958385.html

On Saturday, the five members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the US - including Germany, met in New York to discuss the impending issue of Iran's current nuclear activity. Though Iran maintains that their nuclear activity is merely for civil service purposes, the secrecy of their activity raises some concern with the UN Security Council. The Council has planned on a dual track policy involving pressure and and engagement to resolve the matter. However, Iran has been less than cooperative with the intervention of the Security Council. Iran has been ignoring the UN and their offered solutions, and the Security Council is running out of ideas on ways to deal with the state. The UN has considered sanctions, but they are not 100% sure how effective the sanctions would be. The foreboding activity of Tehran still lingers after the long meeting in New York.

This is the second article I have read about Iran's nuclear activity. The first article, which revealed Iran's secret activities, suggested that Iran is an unstable state facing the many pressure of globalization -- pressures it is not ready to deal with. The secret nuclear activity demonstrates Iran's inability to properly handle globalization and lack of stability as a democracy. Though Iran has the rudiments of democracy in place, it seems to be slowly cracking under the pressure of what being a democracy really means. In this article, we see that Iran is ignoring the Security Council and their ideas and deals. This act shows that Iran is uncooperative and is pushing away globalization. A true democracy does not push away globalization. A true democracy tries to cooperate well with other nations and does not act as if everyone is "out to get them." Thus, Iran cannot be considered a stable, democratic state. The nuclear issue in Iran is only one of many current events that reveals the state's instability.

Who benefitted from Russia’s transformation to a market economy and why?

A few cleverly creative men, all with some connection to Boris Yeltsin, took advantage of the economic chaos of 1991 that made others suffer. These men soon became the powerful and influential oligarchs of Russia. During the disorderly transition from a command economy to a market economy, these oligarchs knew exactly how to step into the economy and emerge successfully. These oligarchs were skilled business men during the time of the economic changeover, and they used their power as businessmen to manipulate the frenzied companies and people around them to make their millions. All of the oligarchs inserted themselves into the industries - oil, timber, and coal - and now have a monopolized control over them. Many had power with the bank. But their skill in business was not the only tactic these men used to earn millions and gain power. The oligarchs established a strong relationship with Yeltsin, the man in power the time of the changeover, as well as the rest of the political elite. These political connections can guarantee the them their power. So, while the rest of Russia was hit hard by the rapid and clumsy change to a market economy, these oligarchs used all the resources they had to manipulate the situation and climb to the top.

Iran Holds Pro-government Rallies

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091230104542881809.html (from al jazeera)

Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Iran for pro-government rallies.

Protestors fill the squares of Qom, Tehran, Shiraz, and Arak. These demonstrations were not only designed by the state to show the strength of the government, but also to rally against the Iran’s political opposition, which had previously held a series of it’s own protests against the state. Protesters shouted slogans berating to the two opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi (picture right) and Mehdi Karroubi. There were many different reports of where the two leaders of the opposition were during these rallies. While a senior aide to the leaders said they were in Tehran, there were many other rumors. One report said the men had fled to north Iran after learning about the population’s demand for their punishment. Another source claimed they were in custody for protection, while another said the Revolutionary Guards had picked up the men for protection. The Iranian government blames much of the social unrest on the foreign influences of Britain and the United States. Iranian analyst Karim Sadjadpour says that for the West, the situation with Iran is a delicate one. He explains that while the US and European countries should encourage democratic change in Iran, they should be weary of the internal Iranian drama. They could “walk into a trap of tainting the independence of the opposition movement.”

According to Freedom House, Iran is not free. And thought it practices democracy, it is an Authoritarian regime. Iran is a democracy in the way that it has adopted the rudiments of democracy, but Iran is not consolidated, it does not practice these rudiments to their full potential. Iran struggles for stability, and the opposition rallies against the current government are proof of instability. The fact that the state had to organize it’s own, pro-government rallies to combat opposition suggests an unstable state, a state laden with crisis. Instead of trying to take control with a more hands on, democratic approach, the government quickly organized rallies of it’s own. Though organized, rallies are still chaotic, and show that the government does not necessarily know how to handle political and civil disturbances within the state.