How the German Pirate Party's "Liquid Democracy" Works | TechPresident

How the German Pirate Party's "Liquid Democracy" Works | TechPresident
BY David Meyer | Monday, May 7 2012

Photo: Bastian Greshake

Personal Democracy Media is thankful to the Omidyar Network for its generous support of techPresident's WeGov section.
In the midst of the political upheaval affecting Europe, a relatively new movement is making stunning progress, particularly in Germany. On Sunday, the Pirate Party entered its third German state parliament in eight months, demonstrating momentum that surprises even its core members. The party is now on track to pick up a double-digit percentage of the vote in next year's federal elections. And it's dealing with this explosive growth through the medium it knows best: technology.
Founded in Sweden in 2006 by Rick Falkvinge and known at first for its stance on reforming copyright to suit the digital age, the Pirate Party began to gain ground in Germany in 2009. That year, the country's family minister proposed blocking extensive lists of websites as a way of combating child pornography. The country's large hacker community cried censorship, and the then-tiny German Pirate Party again reaped the benefits.

Italy: Beppe Grillo prepares to storm Europe | Presseurop.eu: European news, cartoons and press reviews

Italy: Beppe Grillo prepares to storm Europe | Presseurop.eu: European news, cartoons and press reviews

Italy: Beppe Grillo prepares to storm Europe

20 March 2013

Il Fatto Quotidiano Rome

Shared 278 times in 10 languages

Pierre Kroll

The comedian's Five star movement was the revelation of last Italian election. Its anti-establishment views and "digital democracy" methods are shared by many political movements across the EU, and they could form a common front at the European elections in 2014.

Ferruccio Sansa | Emiliano Liuzzi

Beppe Grillo has a new objective: Europe. While Italian politics struggles to comprehend the political tsunami that has followed his election, from his home in Genoa the leader of the Five Star Movement's mind is already jetting across borders. His stated aim is to export his experience to other European countries where the key aspects of the political and economic crisis are very similar to the one in Italy. “We can't think that we've done it all and stay here in Rome. We need to push on and the target is Strasbourg in 2014, the European Parliament. Because there is a similiar need there, as in Italy and because if we find some support in Europe, the change will be far-reaching,” he tells his followers.

Daniel W. Drezner | FOREIGN POLICY

Daniel W. Drezner | FOREIGN POLICY

How Margaret Thatcher affected international relations theory

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, April 8, 2013 - 1:11 PM

Margaret Thatcher has passed away. I could try to talk about Thatcher's place as a world historical figure, but let's face it, there's going to be an orgy of columns on that very point over the next week or so -- anything I write on the topic would be second rate at best. I could write about my own memories of living in London during the late Thatcher era, but to be honest, that's not terribly interesting -- it's a tale of fading political popularity and really strident left-wing art. 
So, instead, consider the following two ways in which Thatcher has left a legacy in international relations theory:  
1) Diversionary war. There's a large literature in international relations on the notion of using war against a foreign adversary as a way to distract domestic opposition and/or bolster domestic support for a leader (see Chiozza and Goemans for the latest iteration of this literature). It's a little-known fact, but International Studies Association rules prohibit any paper on this topic from being published without a Thatcher reference.  
I kid, but only barely. The Falklands War represents the paradigmatic case of diversionary war theory for two reasons. First, almost every analysis of the conflicts attributes the Argentine junta's growing domestic unpopularity as a key cause of their decision to launch the conflict (though, of course, it's a bit more complicated than that). Second and more importantly, absent the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcher would be remembered as a failed one-term prime minister. Victory over the Argentines in the South Atlantic enabled Thatcher to win re-election.  
In truth, it's far from clear that diversionary war is all that common a practice (if it was, we'd be drowning in conflicts since 2008). The Falklands War, however, does provide the paradigmatic case.
2) The spread of ideas. It's fitting that the New York Times ran a story over the weekend about the boomlet in history about studying the growth of capitalism. Thatcher's role in advancing the spread of free-market ideas to other policymakers was crucial. To explain why free-market capitalism became the pre-eminent idea in economic policymaking over the past few decades, you have to look at Thatcher. She preceded Reagan, becoming the first leader in the developed world to try to change her country's variety of capitalism. Even after Reagan came to power, one could persuasively argue that Thatcher mattered more. As some international political economy scholars have noted, ideas and policies spread much faster when "supporter states" embrace them vigorously rather than reluctantly. Thatcher embraced capitalism with a near-religious fervor, acting as a vanguard for the rest of Europe on this front. For more on the role that Thatcher and her advisors played, see Yergin and Stanislaw's The Commanding Heights, or Jeffry Frieden's Global Capitalism. 
OK, readers, in what other areas of international relations and comparative politics did Margaret Thatcher leave her mark? 

SHARE:Share on diggShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on reddit More COMMENTS (15)

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, ECONOMIC HISTORY, EUROPE, IDEAS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

Five things that international relations scholars should shut the hell up about

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Friday, April 5, 2013 - 4:12 PM

Your humble blogger has been knee-deep in chairing, discussing, and attending International Studies Association panels all of which seem to have the word "diffusion" in the title and SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!!
Now, naturally, with the global financial crisis and its aftermath there's been a lot of talk about debts and deficits. And with the defense sequester and what-not, there's been a lot of talk about rising levels of partisanship.  And I've come to the reluctant conclusion that a lot of this talk need to stop, like, right now. 
Here's the dirty truth about most international studies scholars: They know a fair amount about the high politics of international affairs and almost next to nothing about the rest of life. Of course, the rest of life does impinge on world politics, so there's some natural overlap. The problem starts when, in talking about non-IR stuff, we start to think that we have just as much expertise in these areas. Which we don't. At all. 
Last night I tweeted a query about what areas IR scholars should be quiet about and got way too many answers to fit in a blog post. So, here are five things about which I'd really like 99 percent of international relations scholars to shut the hell up:
1) Macroeconomic policy. Should the United States cut its deficit further? Are budget cuts, tax cuts, or tax increases necessary? How can the eurozone escape its current macroeconomic malaise? Most of us have no friggin' clue what the correct answers are for the United States, and that goes double for the euro zone. So unless you're actually publishing scholarly work on global macroeconomic policy, shut up.
2) The role of money in American politics. Foreign policy scholars are far too often shocked -- shocked!! -- when they see interest group politics at work. The Citizens United decision has only amplified this lament. The reaction to this is to either bemoan the general health of the American polity or to start developing simple theories that argue that money or lobbies explain everything about politics. Now I might not be the biggest fan of the American politics subfield, but I'm pretty sure they know more about this topic than we do. So shut up and read what they have to say.
3) Partisanship in the United States. Did you know that it's getting worse? And that it's paralyzing the U.S. government? And that it's getting worse? One of the natural biases of foreign policy scholars is to think in terms of a national interest, and then act appalled when there are different partisan conceptions of that term. Basically, what applies to #2 applies to this point as well.   
4) The Internet. As near as I can determine, when asked about this technology affects international politics, most scholars answer with some variation of "networks networks networks cyber cyber cyber." Some scholars do very good work on this subject. The rest of us should shut up for a spell and read them. 
5) Diffusion. Never again. Ever.   
What else, my dear readers, would you like to see less gabbing about from international affairs scholars? 

BBC World Service - The New Europe: The far right: a nationalist International?

BBC World Service - The New Europe: The far right: a nationalist International?

The far right: a nationalist International?

Listen to the programme

Joerg Schulze presents The far right - a nationalist International and David Ceserani gives his personal view in Comment.


Earlier this year at a rally of the Far Right NPD party in Germany supporters sung the national anthem. For obvious historical reasons any resurgence of the Far Right in Germany is watched with concern, both at home and abroad.
West Germany was able to establish firm democratic roots after the defeat of Hitler. But its reunification with Eastern Germany which had no real democratic foundation and was in a much poorer economic state, combined with the completely new phenomenon of mass and persistent unemployment provided the classic breeding ground for extremist politics.
Last month the threat from the right moved a bit closer when the German People´s Party won thirteen per cent of the vote in the elections in the eastern state of Saxony Anhalt.
But in the New Europe support for nationalist parties is not a problem unique to Germany. In the past decade their numbers have swelled across the continent. Despite their electoral gains, so far, no Far Right party in Europe has been able to break through the 15 per cent barrier with any consistency.
According to George Schopflin, of London University, that's a level of support which democracy can just about tolerate. "We can live with that. It can be very disagreeable, most unpleasant, but we can live with that. The danger arises when it starts to be significantly above ten to fifteen per cent because at that point you have the basis for a proper parliamentary, perhaps extra-parliamentary action - and that paralyses the rest of your parliament."
There is, however, a danger of complacency, especially with unemployment in Europe high and with the unsettling changes associated with EU enlargement and Economic and Monetary Union.
In France Jean-Marie Le Pen´s Front National has become an established part of the political landscape, gaining well over ten per cent in most elections. The National Front has one principal preoccupation - immigration. Jean-Marie Le Chavallier was re-elected mayor in March this year with over a third of the vote in the southern port town of Toulon . His slogan is "Your security and the French first". "France is made up of those born in France and those born elsewhere. What´s important is culture and a sense of belonging to the international family. In the last thirty years we've had ten million immigrants, and every year there are one hundred and sixty thousand more - usually from the third world. They have no financial means, no qualifications and there are too many of them. This is no longer immigration, it´s an invasion."
Earlier this month Le Chevallier's wife was defeated in the only seat held by the Front National in the National Assembly. Nonetheless, the views of the Le Chevalliers, with their often exaggerated claims on immigration numbers, can easily be heard echoed in the street. This, for example, from an old man who was shopping in the market in Vitrolles, another National Front stronghold. "It´s those who are born in France, those who lost parents, men during the war, those who worked in France and raised their children in France, who have unemployed children, for example. We have to give priority to them. Now I´m not saying we should put the others in camps, but we have to look after French people first."
Opposition to immigration is the battle cry of the extreme right across Europe, such as Austria's Freedom Party. Its supporters demand tougher restrictions on foreigners.
The Freedom Party´s leader Jöerg Haider is charismatic and youthful. His strategy has been to make his party respectable - electable to the middle class. That's why he rejects any comparison with other Far Right leaders such as Le Pen -- even though the Freedom Party´s manifesto mirrors that of the National Front´s and even though the National Front too has been aiming for respectability by making deals with moderate conservative parties. Joerg Haider -"When I came to the United States for the first time I had to explain - is the Freedom Party similar to Le Pen or something else? I explained it by an example in the United States and said: "Look to your south border in San Diego for instance where the border control has erected two metre high walls to prevent the Mexican people coming to California." It would not be imaginable to do it in Austria but we have to fight against the wave of immigration too."
Many of the Austrian immigrants have arrived from Central Europe. The collapse of communism opened the door for workers in the East to seek employment - legally or illegally, in the affluent West. But far right parties in former communist countries have found their own scapegoats - established minorities such as gypsies.
Unlike its counterparts in the West, the Republican Party in the Czech Republic has had to build up its support base and party structure from scratch. Jan Vik is an MP for the Republican Party. "We don´t like seeing the so-called waves of migration from various East European countries, Asia, Africa and so on - because even with the best will [in the world] we've got enough problems of our own, for example with our gypsies. And we don´t see why they should be reinforced fromRomania, Ukraine and I don´t know where else."
David Ceserani, director of the London based Wiener Library on the holocaust and fascism, leafs through the mountains of research tracking the far right. According to Professor Ceserani, it would be a mistake to see nationalism in Eastern and Central Europe as a new phenomenon. Instead, he says, it's merely been suspended in time. "In some cases, what we are seeing is a resurgence of ethnic and national conflicts that were frozen by communism. The position of minorities within certain central and Eastern European states, the Hungarians in what is now Slovakia for example, was simply not an issue while Hungary and the Czechoslovak Republic were both members of the Eastern bloc and enjoyed fraternal co-operation. Now these are independent countries. And some ruthless, unscrupulous political leaders in both countries have used the minority situation."
Slovakia has not been invited to join NATO and has been put into the slow track of EU membership, in part because of the government's curtailment of the cultural and language rights of the Hungarian minority. The radical nationalist Slovak National Party was invited to join the ruling coalition in 1994, and has been there ever since. But Dusan Slobodnik, a Slovak National Party MP and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, maintains the Hungarian minority enjoy a privileged status. "The official policy never has been in Slovakia judged or evaluated as a nationalistic policy. We are patriots of our country but nationalism means not saying about the whole range of this term - it means suppression of some other nation or of some other group. And it doesn´t happen in Slovakia."
The anti-immigrant, anti-minority rights campaign, is not the only issue which unites the European extreme right. The Far Right is also virulently anti- Brussels. Jan Vik of the Czech Republican Party says the EU threatens a new imperialism. "The Czech Republic should finally be itself, not move away from the Eastern sphere around Moscow just to turn madly a hundred and eighty degrees and do everything they want in the West - be it in Bonn or Brussels."

All the Far Right parties in Europe oppose closer European integration. That, says the Czech born historian Jacques Rupnik, is potentially fertile political territory. "With the progress of European integration, with Maastricht, with now the common currency and of course with Schengen, with the idea that borders between European Union members are being abolished - well, that obviously is a whole new unchartered territory and naturally the right wing nationalists will try to use it and abuse it, and they are already doing so - not very effectively in most cases but I think on the immigration issue and on the issue of borders they will try to make some mileage out of the anti-European campaign."
For most Europeans, nationality remains one of the most important badges of identity. According to Professor Cesarani, the nationalism of the Far Right will eventually be weakened - not by a growing attachment to Brussels, but rather by a growing attachment to one's region. "The EU is a practical demonstration that the old nation-state has probably come to the end of its career but more positively it does stimulate and facilitate regional identities. In the case of the United Kingdom, for example membership of the European Union has made it possible for people of Scotland to press the case for autonomy within the UK and to make the case for independence much stronger because the EU provides a nest in which small nations and regions can function effectively. It has to some extent shifted the focus to cultural identities and away from political identities."
In Russia the extreme nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, has been known to throw a glass of juice over his opponent in a heated television debate. A crude political style often accompanied by a crude anti-semitism. Zhirinovsky has tried to forge links with like-minded political leaders across Europe. On several occasions he's met representatives of nationalist Serb organisations, repeating his pledges of Russian support for the Serb cause. He also tried to enter Belgium and Germany -- but has been refused visas.
There are some signs of co-operation among parties of the European far right -- facilitated by modern communications such as the internet. But George Schöpflin from the University of London thinks that the spectre of far right networks has more to do with media hype than reality: "I can see far right skinheads from a variety of countries getting together and saying "let´s all be horrible together" and then the journalists will go "oh - magnificent story, look at them!" - and they will focus on two hundred shaven-headed thugs and say 'There´s the New Europe'. That's rubbish, it´s not true. But that´s the way that television especially likes to handle it. They might even be horrible to each other but they are a drop in the ocean."
Well maybe. But in parts of the New Europe, violence against minorities and immigrants has become endemic. In East Germany alone last year several were killed and over a 1000 injured by far right thugs. Nonetheless, Professor David Ceserani, believes the idea of a nationalist international, is a contradiction in terms. "There has always been talk of a "black international", there have been attempts to bring fascists throughout Europe together since the 1920s and they´ve always failed because there is a fundamental incompatibility between a nationalism, particularly in its far-right version, which accentuates national difference or racism and posits irresolvable differences between people and nations in the attempt to create transnational alliances. It´s possible for fascist groups to operate together at a pragmatic level. But when push comes to shove and when these chaps get drunk at their annual rallies they very soon start hurling racial and nationalistic epithets at each other and they find it impossible to co-operate, I regard the chances of a "black international" with a pinch of salt ."