Creating New States – By Philip Petraglia

There’s much talk these days of disintegrating states. By this I mean countries facing secessionist movements. A country like Syria that seems to be headed towards a total break up comes to mind. The idea that states are not etched in stone is not a new concept. There are currently 193 member states at the United Nations but expect new states to join. This does not mean that countries will completely disintegrate as happened in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Rather, expect regions to secede while leaving the remaining state viable as both a political and legal identity.

Most separatist groups represent minority groups within existing states searching for a more secure future. Minority groups can be based along racial, ethnic, tribal, religious, and linguistic lines. They tend to cluster in certain geographic locations within a state, often along border regions where ethnic kin dominate on the other side of the border. Very few pundits expect hundreds of new states to be created, but expect a certain number to emerge.

Whether the creation of new states is a good or bad thing is still open to debate. Minorities who become the majority have a nasty habit of mistreating their own minorities. Whether they become democratic or autocratic is also open to question. In the case of Eritrea, a new state founded in 1993 after seceding from Ethiopia, a one party autocratic state was eventually created. Other states like South Sudan, a country that seceded from Sudan in 2011, seem to be facing their own internal divisions based on ethnicity, religion, and tribalism. And finally, new states like Timor-Leste continue to suffer from poverty and high employment.

There are many ways to keep new states from emerging. One way is to do as the Russians did with regard to the Chechens who sought to secede from Russia in the 1990s. Moscow ruthlessly put down the uprising with thousands losing their lives. Not a good model to follow! Other states try a more democratic approach by granting minority groups some local autonomy as the Spanish are doing with the Catalonians and Basque people in Spain.

Here’s a quick survey of past and future states, starting with Europe. Czechoslovakia was a small Central European country that emerged from the ashes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, declaring independence in 1918. It officially dissolved in 1993 with the Slovaks and Czechs going their own separate ways. More to the south, Montenegro seceded from Serbia in 2006, leaving Serbia a landlocked nation. These were peaceful farewells in contrast to what transpired in the former Yugoslavia. Formed in 1918 after the end of the First World War, this nation of south Slavs disintegrated in the 1990s into a half dozen states, but not before thousands were killed with millions more ethnically cleansed. So much for Slavic unity as the framers of the Treaty of Versailles had hoped for. But the biggest break up of them all was the USSR. Created in 1922, it emerged from the Russian Revolution and went on to massacre millions of poor souls while imprisoning millions more in Gulags. Thankfully it dissolved as a state in 1991, putting an end to the Cold War, and creating over a dozen new states in both Europe and Central Asia.

Asia and Africa is our next stop. South Vietnam was a country located in South East Asia that existed as a separate state from 1949-75. It was forcibly united with North Vietnam with the fall of Saigon in 1975 and is now part of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Meanwhile in Africa, South Sudan, a Christian and Animist country, seceded from the Muslim and Arab speaking north to form its own state. As mentioned, it now faces its own sectarian divisions. The Horn of Africa has its own separatist tendencies. Eritrea officially seceded from Ethiopia in 1993, making the later country the most populous landlocked country in the world with 93,000,000 people. Back in Asia, East Timor, a Christian country, seceded from largely Muslim Indonesia in 2002.

So where are future hot spots? They’re pretty much on every continent except in South America and Australia. Let’s start with Canada, one of America’s most important trading partners. Quebec, the only predominantly French speaking province in the country, came close to seceding in 1995 when the separatists led by Lucien Bouchard took 49.42% of the vote. Too close for comfort for committed federalists like myself! Things have quieted down but what if Quebecers elect a charismatic leader? Add a worsening economy, unnecessary meddling from the central government in Ottawa and a few incendiary incidents in the rest of the country, and you may get the perfect storm. Not likely but you never know! The United Kingdom like Canada is one of the most democratic and prosperous countries in the world. But like Canada, it too faces a separatist problem. In 2011 the Scottish National Party won overall majority in the Scottish Parliament and now intends to hold a referendum on independence in 2014. Meanwhile across the Channel we have Belgium, where the Flemish speakers in the north and French speaking Walloons in the south seem to have problems forming governments. Political parties are even formed along strictly linguistic lines. But countries with better weather also have their own separatist problems starting with Spain, where Catalonians and Basques continue to fight for independence despite Madrid’s transfer of powers to local Parliaments. It seems local autonomy is insufficient. So there you have it: prosperous (Spain excluded) and democratic states have their own separatist movements to deal with and no amount of power sharing seems to satisfy local nationalists.

The Middle East has its own separatist problems to deal with which is understandable considering the amount of massacres and violations in human rights that have taken place there since these countries were created after World War Two. Iraq is a classic example. Composed of three main groups, namely, Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias, the Kurds in the north have all but seceded. Who can blame them when you consider the persecution and mass murder they faced under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni dominated tyranny? Syria is exhibit two. With only 12% of the population, Alawites control the country’s military and political apparatus, and have never hesitated to remind the Sunni majority of this fact through massacres of unarmed Sunni civilians. Expect them to form their own state along the coast should the Sunni take power. Call it fear of retribution.

Some states however will remain intact no matter how brutal the majority treats its minorities. India, China, and Russia, the so-called brick countries, are a good example. With a population of only 143 million people, Russia is the world’s biggest country. 80% are ethnic Russian but the country has dozens of minority groups speaking some 27 officially recognized languages. To see how far Moscow will go to protect the country’s physical integrity, one only has to harp back to the Chechen war in the 1990s when Moscow used uncontrolled force to put down a secessionist rebellion that saw thousands lose their lives. A clear message no doubt for other regions in the Russian federation. Not to be outdone with regard to brutality, China is another nation that will do whatever it takes to keep regions with minority groups from seceding. With 1.3 billion people, 90% of whom are Han Chinese, minorities face both brutality and cultural assimilation as Tibetans can attest to. Many of these minorities are located in the northern part of China along the border regions with countries such as India and Russia. Geo- political considerations thus come into play at the expense of minority rights and aspirations. The Han Chinese are not even shy about pursuing a policy of cultural assimilation by imposing Mandarin in schools to the detriment of local languages. Lastly, India is the world’s second populous nation with 1.2 billion people and faces separatist movements from Kashmir in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south. Other regions with separatist movements include Punjab and Assam. India unlike China and Russia is a democratic country but this has not kept the Indian army from committing atrocities in Muslim dominated Kashmir. The problem in India could be alleviated by transferring certain powers to local Parliaments, but India will likely remain a state with a strong central government.

So as we watch events unfold in the Ukraine where Ukrainian speakers in the western and central areas of the country fight Russian speakers in the eastern and southern regions for political power, we should ask ourselves what needs to be done to keep countries from splintering into tiny states. We can start by insisting that states respect basic human rights. But more can be done through federalism by granting minorities local powers through regional Parliaments. Attempting to rule from the central government will only lead to more friction and efforts to secede. I may be biased as a Canadian, but the Canadian model as discussed in a previous blog may be a good way to protect minority rights within a federal system. Other examples include Switzerland where cantons are drawn along linguistic lines. There you have it: two prosperous and democratic countries. Not bad models to follow.

E.O. Wilson’s Social Conquest of Earth - By Philip Petraglia

Born and raised in Alabama some 84 years ago, E.O. Wilson’s reputation as one of the world’s great biologists was further cemented with the publication of “The Social Conquest of Earth” in 2012. But Professor Wilson is more than a retired Harvard biology professor which in and by itself is an achievement! There’s after all no greater endeavour than teaching students. He’s a great humanist keenly seeking to bring together science, religion, and the liberal arts in an attempt to preserve as many of the world’s species as possible. He is, in addition, a concerned citizen and in this book as with the publication of “Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge” (1998), and “The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth” (2006), we see his noble attempt to get the religious, social science, and scientific communities to cooperate on saving the planet while also understanding how human societies developed through the centuries.

Like most folks born in America’s bible-belt, Professor Wilson was raised a devout Christian but left Christianity decades ago, and now proudly calls himself a Darwinian. Wilson, nevertheless, retains respect for those who hold religious beliefs, unlike so many scientists and non-believers who merely write believers off as ignorant people following superstitious beliefs. Humility along with an open mind remains one of the professor’s good traits!

The Social Conquest of Earth asks three central questions which lies at the heart of both philosophy and religion: where do we come from; what are we; and where are we going. Wilson does not believe that religion will ever solve this great riddle. His belief is that religion is centered on the belief in the supernatural whereas science is based in trusting empirical research. Nor does he believe that philosophy can accomplish this noble task. His answer is to look to the sciences.

Wilson asks two key questions: the first is why advanced social life exists at all; and secondly, what is the identity of the driving forces that brought it into existence. Wilson starts his discussion with the emergence of agriculture more than 10,000 years ago which had the effect of increasing humanity’s food supply along with the density of people on the land. He explains how homo-sapiens left all other species behind in terms of intelligence, community living, and division of labour, much of which was built around early campsites. And most importantly, he explains that how well a group performs depends on how well its members work together, regardless of the degree by which each is individually favoured or disfavoured in the group. Lastly, he points out that there emerged a two part genetic code prescribing social behaviour. The first part prescribes traits that favour success of individuals within their group. The second part, in contrast, prescribes the traits that favor group success in competition with other groups.

This is one of the key factors in understanding Wilson’s view of the world. Evolution has created groups which we all belong to in one form or another, and while it’s true there’s a hierarchy that we’re all part of within these groups, the really significant competition is between groups. People divide into groups and then discriminate in favor of the one they belong to. Modern groups are thus psychologically the tribes of ancient history and prehistory, regardless of how much technology we have in our lives. Forming groups allows us to draw “visceral comfort” and pride which we then defend against other groups. And as Wilson further explains, the tendency to form groups and to favour in-group members has the earmarking of instinct. So here is the course of human development: human beings made the big leap when hunter-gathers invented agriculture and formed village life, then created chiefdoms and paramount chiefdoms, and finally, states and empires.

Wilson stresses that we should comprehend two important things: the first is that we understand the competition between groups and how this defines the world we live in. And secondly, he stresses that we should for both scientific and moral reasons promote human biological diversity for its own sake instead of using it to justify prejudice and conflict. This no doubt is a message directed at his colleagues in the scientific community, not to mention pharmaceutical companies and policy makers in government intent on pursuing eugenic manipulation.

Ever the optimist, Wilson does not believe that robotic intelligence will in the near future replace human intelligence. Thankfully, he describes the biological mind as being of our own “province”, with all its “quirks”, “irrationality” and “risky production”.

One can’t read Wilson’s book without thinking of the great German-American religious and social philosopher, Reinhold Niebuhr, and his influential book, “Moral Man and Immoral Society”, published in 1932. We see here the link in Wilson’s call for religion, the liberal arts and the sciences to come together. If it’s true as Wilson maintains that we are all instinctually part of groups, Niebuhr explains the consequences of group competition.

The essence of Niebuhr’s thesis is that individuals are more prone to ethical behaviour than groups are and that while it’s impossible to establish just relations between groups this is certainly not the case with individuals. In contrast, he sees competition between groups as unequal, whether in regard to whites and blacks in the U.S. or between nations. For Niebuhr, power and self-interest characterize all inter-group relations. Relations between groups are predominantly political rather than ethical. The question thus comes down to how much power each group possesses. Writing during the Great Depression, Niebuhr could not help but write about the imbalance in power between employers and employees. Lastly, Niebuhr argues that while individuals are able to treat one another in an ethical manner, the same is not true for groups and states as they fight over power and resources.

Examples of what Niebuhr is talking about can be seen today. As individuals we care about the environment but this is not necessarily true at the group level, whether in regard to labour unions or employers. There are limits to benevolent impulses and social co-operation requires a certain amount of coercion, hence the need for the Rule of Law.

As someone with degrees in Law, History, and Political Science, I approach this discussion from a Liberal Arts perspective. For starters, I agree with Niebuhr that there will always be unequal distribution of physical and cultural goods as he puts it. He also rightfully points out that human beings have not yet fully learned how to live together. And in a world where global warming is a reality, it also becomes clear that states have not lived to learn together either.

What kind of groups do people cluster around? They come in a multitude of forms. One thinks of women’s groups, labour groups, business groups, ethnic and racial groups, sexual orientation, professional, socio-economic; the list is endless. Let’s look at some of these group conflicts. In Syria today we have a civil war that largely pits Alawites against Sunnis for control of the national government. In the United States, African Americans and Hispanics largely vote for the Democratic Party while whites predominantly vote for the Republican Party. In Fiji the divisions are between the East Indian community and the native population. In India division is along ethnic, religious, and caste lines. In Canada division has traditionally been along linguistic lines. And then there are the gender divisions in the United States over the abortion issue with younger women more prone to support Roe v. Wade. The Middle East meanwhile is torn between those who would build society around religious values and those who seek to modernize along secular lines. Lastly, there’s the lifestyle category where people choose to live in neighbourhoods that reflect their interests in values, whether in regard to technology, food, social issues, concern for the environment, or even what type of coffee to drink.

Both books made me understand the need for political systems to respond to the needs of these competing groups. Intelligent policy making based on fairness becomes imperative, as does responsible government based on the Rule of Law, where all are equal regardless of what group one belongs to. Human beings stopped living in the primeval forest a very long time ago. States consequently require laws and regulation. The libertarian call for less government is unrealistic in a planet that has over 7 billion people. Groups and states will continue to fight over scarce resources not to mention power, whether political, social, or economic. No country can thrive if it fails to see the group conflict and competition existing within its borders. How this group conflict is handled will determine how well states perform, whether in regard to the harmony of its society and happiness of its citizens, or with regard to its competitiveness at the international level. In the end, the aim will be to somehow harmonize the interests of competing groups and to reduce conflict where possible. In other words, accepting and promoting diversity rather than attempting to demonize it as certain politicians sometimes successfully do.

This notion of inter-group competition and identity need not be seen as a negative phenomenon but rather as something that is instinctively natural. It’s part of what makes us human and also interesting as a species. Better to embrace and promote it than to seek division or just pretend it doesn’t exist. We’ll all be better off as a society and as individuals for it.

The Sad State of Global Sports – By Philip Petraglia

I have a confession to make. I use to be one of the world’s biggest sports fans. Then something happened. Part of it is personal. You get older and your priorities change. Suddenly it seems strange to see players praying on the field before an important play. What exactly are they praying for? Global peace? The end to world hunger? A cure for Aids? Does God really care who wins? The other issue with me is money. The salaries these pampered athletes receive is a metaphor for the times we live in where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Does anyone not working to find a cure to cancer really deserve ten million dollars in annual salary, not to mention millions more in endorsements? Of course the fans pay these salaries through outrageous ticket prices. Imagine what would happen if we all came to our senses and refused to pay more than $50.00 for a ticket! It may seem ludicrous but remember whose paying for all these subsidized sports stadiums: the taxpayers no less. Owners make money through ticket sales and television rights. Fans pay high ticket prices and subscribe to cable channels that charge them a pretty sum. Add the building of brand new stadiums with corporate box seats at the taxpayer’s expense and you get a win-lose situation.

A second reason I’ve soured on sports is because of cheating through steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. Cheating seems to be rampant in both the United States and at the international level. Let’s start with what use to be America’s past time: baseball. For those of us who grew up loving this most pastoral of sports, statistics was everything whether in regard to Babe Ruth’s all- time homerun record or Roger Maris’s record for most homers in one season. What true baseball fan could forget the 1998 season when the Cardinals’ Mark McGuire and the Cubs’ Sammy Sosa battled for 162 games to see who would be the first to break Maris’s record? In the end it looks like both “athletes” were using performance enhancing drugs. Sammy Sosa even went on to hit more career home runs than Ernie Banks yet failed to make the Hall of Fame in 2013. Other record breaking players denied entry into Cooperstown include Barry Bonds who broke Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record. In fact, while most of these records have asterisks, they should be crossed out altogether. Other noteworthy scoundrels include Roger Clemens, one of the winningest pitchers of all times, and Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez, currently suspended by Major League Baseball. Rodriguez does however get to keep all the hundreds of millions of dollars acquired in salaries and endorsements.

Baseball of course is not the only sport where performance enhancing drugs is used. The Tour de France has its own gallery of rogues and scoundrels starting with Lance Armstrong, winner of seven consecutive tours who would be suspended by the United States Anti-Doping Agency in 2012. Add Floyd Landis, winner of the 2006 tour, and what you get is an international event that has no credibility as a clean sport. The tour operators might as well give the tour money to the pharmaceutical companies.

There are other reasons to be down on sports regardless of whether it’s at the North American or international level. Let’s start with the Olympics. The Russian town of Sochi is set to host the XXII Olympic Games and XI Paralympic Games in 2014. In addition, Sochi is scheduled to be one of the host cities for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, and was in addition also awarded the Russian Formula 1 Grand Prix from 2014-2020. But there are many reasons for denying Russia international events. We can point to the absence of democracy, lack of respect for basic human rights, bullying of neighbours; the list is endless. Do we really want to reward a country where the Rule of Law is largely absent and where whistle blowing lawyers are tortured and left to die in their cell? Do we want to really support a country that supports despotic states like the Assad regime in Syria? Are there not more worthy nations that could host such events? Perhaps the International Community should demand that Russia build a more robust civil society based on the Rule of Law and respect for basic democratic values, before granting them prestigious international events. They might also throw in freedom of the press and protection for religious and ethnic minorities while they’re at it.

But FIFA just doesn’t seem to get it. In 2010 the FIFA tournament was awarded to South Africa, a country that should be spending it’s time, money, and energy building basic infrastructure for its black majority, rather than stadiums. South Africa also has an estimated 5.6 million people living with HIV, making it the most infected HIV country in the world. Where exactly is the ANC’s priorities? Millions of South Africans, mostly black, also lack clean sanitation and drinking water. And all they could think of is to build a bunch of stadiums?

The folks who run F1 probably take the cake. In fact, they make FIFA look like a benevolent organization dedicated to the betterment of humankind! In an attempt to make F1 racing more global, the brain trust that runs F1 gave Bahrain its own F1 race back in the seventies. Since then Bahrain has been ruled by the Al Khalifa Family as a sort personal kingdom where dissenters face arbitrary arrests and torture. This all came to the surface in 2011 with the Bahraini uprising. It got so bad Saudi Arabia was asked by the Royal family to come in and put down the Shia uprising. Shias are about two thirds of Bahrain’s population, but the Sunnis who make up the other one third, essentially run the country’s political, economic, and military institutions. The next F1 race is scheduled in 2014 despite the continued human rights abuses.

A major reason for promoting international sporting events like the Olympics is the belief that it somehow helps promote the local and national economy. But nothing could be further from the truth. San Francisco is a world class city despite never having hosted the Olympic Games. The same is true for other great American cities like Portland (Oregon), Pittsburgh and Boston. These are cities with dynamic economies based on science and technology. They’re cities people enjoy living in because they are socially inclusive and environmentally responsible. They also have excellent universities and a lively culture scene. Culture by the way brings in more money than sports while requiring less in taxpayers’ subsidies.

In the end countries that hosted the Olympic Games had already reached a certain level of democratic and economic development. Korea, Japan, and Norway all hosted the Olympic Games once economic and political development had already been successfully realized. This is something that Brazil’s political leaders should have taken into consideration before successfully lobbying to host the FIFA World Cup in 2014 and the summer Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in 2016. Would the time, money, and energy not been better spent on health care, education, and basic infrastructure?

I’ve been trying to figure out why so many politicians are enamored by sports, whether at the local or international level. Two reasons come to mind. The first one is about looking for that quick fix. Why implement intelligent economic programs based on thoughtful policymaking when you can just hold an international event? The world will discover who you are and realize just how great your city or nation is. Economic development then just magically happens. Never mind putting your attention on education, especially if you’re running an economy based on natural resources and tourism. Arguments are made that sporting events lead to improved infrastructure like roads and public transportation. But shouldn’t infrastructure be built regardless of hosting these costly games? New York’s subway system was built despite never having hosted the Olympic Games. The same is true with regard to the infrastructure of every other great economy whether in Europe or North America.

The second reason has to do with gender. We men are still the overwhelming majority of politicians. I realize the current president of Brazil is a woman, but as a rule, I have to believe that most female politicians would rather spend big dollars on basic services like health and education. Perhaps this mania to host costly international events will only change once more left leaning politicians and women rise to power. Only time will tell.

Electing Better Politicians – By Philip Petraglia

We live in an age of political cynicism. While it’s true there are a multitude of political systems ranging from democracies to dictatorships, there’s plenty of cynicism to go around regardless of the political system in question. People across the world have lost faith in their government. To be called a politician has become a dirty word. Voters associate politicians with corruption, cronyism, and cynicism. It doesn’t help that many politicians serve the interests of special interest groups. Politicians can be perceived as serving the needs of a particular ethnic, tribal, linguistic, or religious group. The national interest is consequently set aside so that the interests of sectarian groups can better be served. Of course some politicians are simply perceived as serving their own political and monetary self-interests. Gangsters disguised as politicians. Other politicians are seen as carrying on the family tradition. Countries like India, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria and North Korea come to mind. They include dictators, monarchs, and even the democratically elected.

One might ask why we should care about the politicians we elect. The answer is simple. No political system will work effectively if it’s not operated by competent politicians. The best political theory is useless if not put into practice by intelligent men and women dedicated to pursuing the common good, or as John Stuart Mills emphasized, the greatest good for the greatest number. Qualified politicians are individuals who understand public policy in a deep and meaningful manner. They can think both short term and long term, and are able to put the needs of society before their own selfish needs, including the needs of whatever sectarian group they come from. One thinks immediately of a great man like Mahatma Gandhi, a devout Hindu, who sought to create an independent India that would unite Muslims and Hindus, not to mention the many castes. Closer to our times, one thinks of Nelson Mandela who was able to assure white South Africans there would be a place for them in a post-apartheid South Africa. A case can even be made for Franz Tito, the Yugoslavian leader who kept the Balkan country from descending into chaos. He would eventually be succeeded by Slobodan Milosevic, whose sectarian leanings would lead the many ethnic and religious groups to fight one another over territory, as one area after another seceded from Belgrade. The end result was a civil war that took tens of thousands of lives, not to mention ethnic cleansing throughout the former Yugoslavia.

Democracies also need leaders that unify rather than divide. Canada had Pierre Eliot Trudeau who as Prime Minister united the country’s two main linguistic groups. Churchill was able to unite Britons regardless of class so as to better deal with the war effort. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought the nation together through his New Deal and his valiant attempt to save the working man from starvation and despair. Even members of his own aristocratic class grudgingly accepted the need for the government to step in and keep a bad situation from getting worse. Contrast this with countries like Venezuela where Hugo Chavez succeeded successive right wing presidents perceived as serving the interests of the country’s upper classes. Hugo Chavez would go to the other extreme and take up the cause of the poor while trying to destroy the country’s civil and democratic institutions. Venezuelans can do better than to elect extremist politicians who seek to divide along class lines rather than to unite.

What all these leaders had in common was not only their brilliance but the belief on the part of citizens that they were not in it for their own selfish needs. They were also seen as honest and possessing of good character. Franz Tito was an autocrat, some might even say a dictator, but he was not perceived to have filled his pockets like Saddam Hussein did, nor serve the needs of his own ethnic group at the expense of the national interest. This is to be contrasted with Saddam Hussein who was seen by many as ruling on behalf of his own Sunni group at the expense of Shias and Kurds who make up the bulk of Iraq’s population.

So what kind of politicians are we electing? Here’s a world-wide list of politicians who fail to make the grade.

The ethically challenged. Canada for some reason has a host of ethically challenged mayors starting with Toronto’s Rob Ford who admitted to smoking crack cocaine during one of his drunken stupors. Quebec’s mayors are not however to be outdone. But their ethically challenged behaviour has more to do with ties to organized crime than with buffoonery.

Children following in their parents’ footsteps. We start with Indira Ghandi, prime minister of India from 1966 to 1977, whose father, Jawaharlal Nehru, was India’s first prime minister. Indira Ghandi presided over a state of emergency from 1975-1977 and ruled by decree. She was also responsible for over centralizing the country while stifling the country’s entrepreneurial spirit. Meanwhile next door, Benazeer Bhutto, the eldest daughter of Prime Minster Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, ruled from 1988-90 and from 1993-96. Though a darling of the western media, many still accuse her and her husband of profiteering and cronyism. The United States is not immune from children succeeding their fathers. George W. Bush would eventually follow in his father’s footsteps as President and involve America in a bloody war in Iraq that has taken thousands of Iraqi and U.S. lives.

Old time dictators. These are old men, usually revolutionaries, who just refuse to go away. Two come to mind: Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Cuba’s Fidel Castro. None of these two revolutionaries turned dictators ever succeeded in bringing democracy or prosperity to their respective countries. Mugabe is still there while Castro was forced to step down due to ill health.

Rich men behaving badly. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, the nation’s richest person, leads the way. President from 1994-1995, 2001-2006, and 2008-2011, he was convicted of tax fraud in August of 2013. He’s also currently facing trial for having sex with an under-aged woman who may or may not have been a prostitute. Asked by an unemployed woman how she might go about getting a job in a country with youth unemployment well over 25%, his only reply was to recommend she marry his son as an alternative to gainful employment. How can a country with such a profound culture ever vote for such an individual?

Spouses succeeding spouses. So far it’s women succeeding their husbands but that could change. Let’s start with Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina’s first democratically elected female president. She succeeded her husband Nestor Kirchner, president from 2003-2007. Their plan was to alternate the presidency between them until Nestor Kirchner’s unexpected death. The idea was to turn Argentina into a family fiefdom. The United States will likely enter this category once Hillary Clinton runs for office in 2014 or 2015 despite being a divisive person. But aren’t there other more qualified female candidates who are not as divisive? And who will the real president be once Hillary gets in?

The candidate with the name recognition. This is the inexperienced politician who comes with a recognizable name. Canada leads the way among democracies ever since Justin Trudeau became leader of the Federal Liberal Party in April 2013. He doesn’t by all indications have his father’s intellect or political astuteness, but that may not be important. He’s currently leading in the polls as the Conservatives self-destruct with the Senate scandal. As for the NDP, they can’t seem to poll more than 25% of the vote. Canada just isn’t that left of center. But is Justin Trudeau ready to rule? Isn’t one of the world’s oldest political parties capable of presenting a more qualified candidate? Aren’t Canadian voters more politically astute than to vote for a name?

Brotherly love. Or make that sisterly love. The current president of Thailand, Yingluck Shinawatra, president since 2012, is facing a near revolution in her country as demonstrators take to the streets by the thousands. She has in place an amnesty plan that would rescue her brother from arrest should he return to the Thailand. What are siblings for? Her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, was prime minister from 2001-2006 and fled the country after being charged with fraud. But not to worry. He also happens to be Thailand’s richest person.

The silly brigade. Think Sarah Palin, Republican nominee for Vice President in the 2008 presidential. It was believed she would bring in both the female and evangelical vote. Think of it as a Hail Mary Pass on John McCain’s part in an attempt to defeat Barack Obama. She became instead a source of amusement. In the end, the only real victors were Obama and Saturday Night Live, not to mention Sarah Palin herself who went on to make millions in speaking engagements and one very lucrative book deal. Special mention should also go to Sharron Angle who ran unsuccessfully as the 2010 Republican nominee for a senate seat in Nevada. Her opponent was Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader and a prominent liberal. Reid went on to win by a comfortable majority. We should all be grateful, especially when you consider Ms. Angle pledged to take the United States out of the United Nations. She was also heard to state in one of her memorable speeches that she could not distinguish Hispanics from Asians. In short, she was a candidate from another time and scary place.

So there you have it: global mediocrity in our choice of politicians. But there’s no reason to despair. For starters, we have the Scandinavian countries as models of good governance. What they all have in common is an intelligent and well-informed electorate that understands policy issues. None of these countries elect politicians who lack seriousness, whether from the left or from the right. These countries also happen to be meritocracies where the gap between the rich and the poor hardily exists to the degree that it does in the rest of the world. They possess a vibrant middle class where citizens pay high taxes but receive the world’s best public services in return. These are not countries where political parties wage great ideological battles. They possess a national consensus of what citizens should receive from their governments. Perhaps these are points we can all learn from, whether in the West or the Emerging World.