• Arab Spring… Turned to Drought?
• Rhetorical "Resistance" or Genuine Reform?
• Arab Democracy vs. Cultural Constraints, Resilient Regimes
• Realism Meets Idealism
• A Tribute to Vaclav Havel: "We few, we happy, we band of brothers…"
• Democracy a Labor of Sisyphus, Backlash Reminds
• China: On a (Very) Slow Boat to Democracy
• Elections Confirm Putin's Potemkin Democracy
• Managed Democracy – Kremlin's New Export?

• In Brief
• Opportunities
• Events

Arab Spring… Turned to Drought?

Some two years after the short-lived Arab Spring, the region's democrats are on the defensive. The optimism engendered in 2005 by the run-up to Egypt's presidential elections, Lebanon's Cedar revolution, and Iraqis' electoral turnout in defiance of terrorist threats, has proved temporary. The rise of Hamas and Hizbollah has seen a narrative of resistance replace that of democratic reform amongst many Arab activists and prompted a supposed realist resurgence in Washington and Europe.

Despite claims at the time of a "crowing triumphalist narrative", most observers realized that the Arab Spring was driven not by Washington or Brussels but by local forces and factors, including civil society mobilizations. External actors were quick to give due credit. Civil society "will lead these changes," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, stressing that "every single democratic development, every single democratic revolution [in the region]…will have an indigenous character." Likewise, Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for common foreign and security policy, insisted that while foreign agencies "can help create a context conducive to political change, .. support and reward reformist forces", such movements must be "home-grown and adapted to local conditions."

Much current commentary on the setbacks for Arab democracy stresses US culpability, reflecting the questionable assumption that democratization is not a home-grown process but a form of political engineering. "It's back to Cold War politics in the Middle East," claims regional expert Marina Ottaway. "The lofty ideals of democracy promotion may still find their way into the administration's speeches, but when it comes to policy, America's enemies' enemies are its friends." Yet most serious practitioners appreciate that states inevitably juggle conflicting priorities, including security, diplomatic and commercial interests, which are not always necessarily or compatible.

Nothing in the region that prevents it from becoming democratic, but one phenomenon that is unique to the Arab world, suggests Uriya Shavit, is "a mindset that combines a desire for democracy with a genuine, cross-party fear of Western intentions." Indeed, many Arab intellectuals and politicians like Arab League leader Amr Moussa blame the US for the current turmoil and for Sunni-Shiite conflicts in particular. The Americans have allegedly "let the evil spirit out of the bottle – which, however, implies that the evil spirit existed already," says Francois Zabbal, Director of the Arab World Institute. Furthermore, Zabbal asks, "does this attitude not amount to an a posteriori justification of Saddam Hussein's rule by force – and all authoritarian Arabic regimes which could care less about the personal and political freedom of their subjects?"

Rhetorical "Resistance" or Genuine Reform?

Attributing the democratic downturn exclusively to external agents and diplomatic realpolitik does a disservice to local actors, in terms of diminishing both their contribution and responsibility. But if Arab democratization is necessarily a locally-driven affair, it is also the case that indigenous groups actively retard democratic prospects when they pursue opportunistic or otherwise irresponsible strategies. Egypt's Kifaya movement is a case in point. It recently launched a campaign to collect 1 million signatures on a petition calling not for, say, free and fair elections or an end to the Emergency Laws but the annulment of the 1979 Camp David peace accords with Israel. While outgoing Kifaya leader George Ishaq defended the petition as an opportunity for a unified front, other activists reacted with incredulity and ridicule.

While some "democratic activists became more hesitant about being identified with the signature issue of the American president," it remains the case, says Freedom House's Tom Melia, that those same Arab and Iranian democrats "will have to play the leading roles in advancing freedom in their own lands." Sadly, faced with the choice of pursuing "normal statehood, or a belligerent 'resistance'", too many of the region's democrats and reformers are seduced by the latter. Their new-found allies include elements who, says Carnegie's Amr Hamzawy, "have arrayed themselves in the contexts of grassroots movements of a strongly doctrinaire religious cast yet whose identities sometimes converge with ethnic and sectarian affiliations."

After last year's Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, resistance versus restraint became the primary axis of political division, notes Hamzawy, "taking the place of democracy versus autocracy' [as] …. pan-Arab ruling elites and opposition movements, replaced their usual Nasserite anti-Israel and anti-Western rhetoric with religious slogans, attempting to ride on the coattails of the Islamists."

"This is an undemocratic narrative, based on dehumanizing images of the 'Other', whether that means Jews, or Israel, or the West," Hamzawy suggests. "It is racist and immoral to see Israeli society as a military machine that must be terrorized in the name of Arab or Islamic resistance. For Arabs and Arab intellectuals it is a waste of time, it is populist and it is dangerous."

Arab Democracy vs. Cultural Constraints, Resilient Regimes

The recent re-emergence of illiberal populism is especially unfortunate since in such manifestoes as the Doha Declaration, Arab democrats and reformers have rejected this all-too-familiar rationale for the perpetual postponement of reform. "Hiding behind the necessity to resolve the Palestinian question before implementing political reform is obstructive and unacceptable," the Doha Declaration insists.

Furthermore, it was evident even at the height of the Arab spring hype that the region's regimes sought to shift the agenda in this direction and that, in any case, they remained resilient. The short-lived "Damascus Spring" accompanying Bashar Assad's succession gave a foretaste when political space quickly closed after dissidents questioned the legitimacy of Ba'athist rule. "We will not accept that anybody take power from us, because it comes from the barrel of the gun, and we are its masters," said Mustafa Tlass, Syria's hard-line defense minister. Indeed, "the lesson of the past generation is that most states in the Arab Middle East have grown stronger, not weaker," says Robert Satloff. "Arab leaders are interested first and foremost in survival, which means protecting their national interests, not subscribing to romantic notions of ethnic or religious ideology."

The resilience or Arab authoritarianism is well-established. The Middle East has experienced some modest progress albeit at a glacial pace, according to the latest Freedom in the World survey. But the Arab world remains the world's only democracy-free zone. Rami Khouri is all too typical of elite opinion in attributing this state of affairs to external actors. "Only the Arab world suffers the mass self-abuse of police states and soft autocracies that are a legacy of the post-colonial period," he claims, blaming the region's pathologies on the "lingering distortions and problematic legacies of 19th- and 20th-century European colonialism."

It may well be true that in the British and French colonies of the mashreq and beyond, "the mandates sowed dragon's teeth that were eventually to grow into the complex of tensions and despotisms that constitute the contemporary Middle East". British culpability for the artificial nature of the Iraqi state is probably the best known instance. But at a time when Ghana, one of sub-Saharan Africa's many electoral democracies, is celebrating its 50th anniversary of independence, this surely begs the question of why the Middle East has failed to join large swathes of post-colonial Asia, Africa and Latin America on the road to democracy.

Some skeptics believe the answer lies in the peculiarities of Arab culture, invoking Elie Kedourie's claim in Democracy and Arab Political Culture that "there is nothing in the political traditions of the Arab world which might make familiar, or indeed intelligible, the organizing ideas of constitutional and representative government." Yet culture and tradition are constraints, not determinants, as suggested by at least four Arab experiments with constitutional democracy in Iraq from 1921-38, Syria 1928-49, Egypt 1923-52, and Lebanon 1926-75."Culture does matter," says Lawrence Harrison. "But politics can change culture and enable more rapid progress, substantially transforming societies within a generation."

Realism Meets Idealism

External pressure and support for Middle East reform has met with, at best, a mixed response from local actors. The "historic mistake of Arab liberals was to stand elbow to elbow with the despots oppressing them in condemning the American democratic project for the region, instead of exploiting it," says the Beirut Daily Star's Michael Young. The problem with a return to realism, he argues, is that 9/11 was a by-product of that approach. "Militant Islam thrives in repressive Arab societies," but realists are "incapable of gauging the importance of ideas, of understanding that militant Islam is perilously eschatological in its ambitions."

"The real danger is highly enriched Islam," argues Mamoun Fandy, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies' Middle East program, echoing Young's stress of the war of ideas. "The battleground in the Arab world today is not in Palestine or Lebanon, but in the classrooms and newsrooms." Arab nationalist media like Al Jazeera "practically tell bin Laden and his followers, 'Bravo,'", he says.

Furthermore, Young notes, America's traditional Arab allies are being marginalized by the region's non-Arab peripheral states of Iran, Turkey and Israel. "Within the next decade, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also Jordan and Syria, are liable to face considerable instability unless they can reform and become more democratic," he observes. "To regard the Arab state system as stable in its mediocrity is to misread the recent past."

But he finds support from two such realists who realize that "the region's Sunni powerhouses are much less inclined to support US efforts and, in fact, may obstruct them." For Ray Takeyh and Nikolas Gvosdev, "the very notion that the Middle East can be stabilized by reconvening a 1980s-style alignment of Sunni states is fallacious." The alternative, they suggest, is to devise a new way of approaching Shia actors and states.

The Sunni states may well appreciate that the freedom agenda has been lowered a couple of decibels by the US. But both realists and idealists have to embrace two crucial facts, says Cambridge University analyst John Bew: first, given that rapid, irreversible and "seismic social, religious, and geo-political shifts" will transform the region, "any foreign policy that aims to maintain the 'status quo' is therefore predicated on an illusion"; second, such changes may not reflect a model that "rhymes too closely with the values of the West," with nationalism rather than democratic idealism serving as the "driving force against totalitarianism."

The US needs to promote democratic reform without actively undermining Arab regimes, argues a provocative new analysis. As in East Asia, the US role should be to "reduce the risks and costs of undertaking essential, long-delayed reforms through material incentives, disincentives and dialogue," argue Martin Indyk and Tamara Wittes of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Democracy promotion efforts should be tailored to country-specific circumstances and principally focused on those states like Egypt, Morocco and Jordan with robust, capable governments and relatively moderate Islamist opposition groups. "Cultivating moderation is essential to building democracy and cultivating democracy is essential to building moderation," they argue, suggesting a Democracy Challenge Account as one means of providing aid incentives for reform.

"Insisting on elections without investing in the long, drawn-out process of institution building has empowered in places like Iraq and the Palestinian territories not secular Jeffersonian democrats anxious to support the United States but Islamist parties whose agenda markedly differs with America's interests," claim Gvosdev and Ray Takeyh. Indyk and Wittes concede that radical groups like Hamas, Hizbollah and Iraq's Sadrists have benefited from democratic openings. "With superior organization, an anti-American, anti-regime message, and only a feeble central government to counter them, they were able to enter government with their militias and terrorist cadres intact." Sensitive to such arguments, Indyk and Wittes push for an emphasis on building democratic institutions over holding elections, although this is a contested and difficult process.

A political and economic reform agenda would help create what, in such statements as the Alexandra Declaration, reformers call a new social contract between Arab governments and citizens. While there are unavoidable trade-offs between short-term and long-term goals, and between democracy promotion and other strategic interests, a long term agenda of economic and political liberalization could not only address people's aspirations and undermine the appeal of radical militants but promote the stability of US allies. To institutionalize the Freedom Agenda, a strategic approach to democracy promotion should " resist short-term exigencies, including public diplomacy and strategic considerations, that tend to erode democracy promotion efforts … and support the social and institutional changes in Arab states that will promote the long-term expansion of freedom and political accountability."

"Not a day goes by that some commentators in the media don't rejoice in the return of Realism, and not a day goes by that others don't lament the Bush Administration's abandonment of its Freedom Agenda", notes Barry Lowenkron, the US Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. As he hints, the somewhat arid debates between foreign policy idealists and realists often tend to obscure more than they illuminate. Although they are sometimes represent barely disguised theoretical cover for hostility to democracy promotion, those engaged in democracy assistance will need little convincing that, in practical terms, theirs is necessarily both an idealistic and realistic endeavor.

A Tribute to Vaclav Havel: "We few, we happy, we band of brothers…"

Vaclav Havel's latest trip to the US differed somewhat from his first visit in 1968 when he encountered the '60s counterculture. It was this experience, he wrote in his 1992 book Summer Meditations, that inspired "a temperament, a nonconformist state of the spirit, an anti-establishment orientation, an aversion to philistines, and an interest in the wretched and humiliated".

Former Czech President Havel was honored recently in a ceremony at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, receiving the Democracy Service Medal from the National Endowment for Democracy and the National Democratic Institute's Harriman Award. He joined a panel of courageous dissidents, including Oksana Chelysheva, spokeswoman for the Russian Chechen Friendship Society; Min Zin of Burma; Ramon Humberto Colas of Cuba; Ales Mihalevic of Belarus; Rebiya Kadeer, an advocate for the Uyghur people of China; Kim Seung Min of North Korea; and Ali Afshari and Manouchehr Mohammadi of Iran.

The events reminded attendees that in promoting democracy they are promoting The Power of the Powerless, to quote Havel's profoundly influential essay, which served as a vital rallying cry for the dissident and democratic movements under communism. A leading Solidarnosc activist, Zbigniew Bujak, recalls reading it at a time when the Polish workers' movement was at a very low ebb: "Then came the essay by Havel. Reading it gave us the theoretical underpinning for our activity. It maintained our spirits; we did not give up and a year later – in August 1980 – it became clear that the party apparatus and the factory management were afraid of us. We mattered." Who today could dispute Bujak's observation that subsequent events amounted to "an astonishing fulfillment of the prophecies and knowledge contained in Havel's essay"?

Democracy a Labor of Sisyphus, Backlash Reminds

Havel has frequently stressed that the experience that new EU member states had with totalitarian regimes gives them both insight and responsibility in influencing EU policy towards the world's remaining dictatorships in the likes of Burma, Cuba, Belarus and North Korea. "It's up to those of us who have lived through oppressive regimes to convey this experience to others," he said. Havel was one of several original signatories of Charter 77 to sign an open letter to Vietnamese dissidents, express support and solidarity in their struggle for democracy and freedom.

Indeed, on the 30th anniversary of Charter 77, dissidents in those states have drawn on its example for inspiration. "The effect may be very indirect, long-term and almost indiscernible," Havel recently observed, but "it seems that the Charter has produced something that crosses the special period of the fall of communism."

Not long after the collapse of Soviet communism, in 1995, Havel wrote in the Journal of Democracy that "the only salvation of the world today, now that the two biggest and most monstrous totalitarian utopias humanity has ever known …. fortunately have collapsed, is the rapid dissemination of the basic values of the West, that is, the ideas of democracy, human rights, civil society, and the free market." But, in words that both rejected the triumphalism of the day and anticipated some of today's challenges, he stressed that "the effective expansion of democracy presupposes a critical self-examination"

His anxieties are shared by Imre Kertész, Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate who, when recently asked to identify the greatest political threats facing Europe today, replied, "Cowardice. Unnecessary compromise that can harm our values. I often think what might have happened if the U.S. had not stood beside Europe and defeated fascism." Endorsing the argument that twentieth century totalitarianism retains contemporary echoes, he insists "We must not forget that terrorism has its roots in Europe's extremist politics. WW I began with an assassination, and after that we saw further terrorist attacks and the creation of terrorist states. This is the threat. The real fight will not be between nations, but a struggle between fanaticism and democracy."

Complexity and nuance color an approach to democracy which, to Havel, is always more than a set of institutional arrangements or constitutional mechanisms. Democracy is, he argues, "a way of being" that thrives upon "respect for others, honesty, creative work, good manners and taste, solidarity and respect for the culture of different groups and nations." Given our human frailty, democracy so defined is inherently fragile and its promotion and pursuit is, therefore, necessarily a "never-ending obligation" or Sisyphean task – an appropriate and timely injunction at a time when the backlash against the Third Wave of democracy is both increasingly virulent and violent.

China: On a (Very) Slow Boat to Democracy

"It is precisely because the regime knows how restive and disenchanted the Chinese people are that it refuses to open up to any form of democracy," argues James Mann in his impressive new book, The China Fantasy. "The Chinese leaders know that they could be thrown out of office if there were free and open elections."

Just before the National People's Congress (NPC) gathered in Beijing under the banner of democracy, pursuit of truth, harmony, and courageous advance, Premier Wen Jibao announced that democracy would be postponed for a century. "We must stick with our party's basic development guidelines that adhering to the initial stage of socialism for 100 years is the only way to ensure the vitality of socialism with Chinese characteristics," he said.

"There is unstoppable momentum" toward democracy in China, said Tony Blair following a visit to Beijing in 2005. President George W. Bush has similarly taken the conventional view that the economic freedom of the market will generate "habits of liberty". "And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy," he argued. "Trade freely with China, and time is on our side."

But such views underestimate the regime's ideological hostility to democracy and its sophisticated techniques for dividing and suppressing all forms of organized dissent and opposition. Mann is also scathing about suggestions that China's emerging middle class and business elite will chafe at the constraints of authoritarianism. It is because democracy threatens the existing political and economic order that "China's new class of managers and executives, who profit from keeping wages low, support the regime in its ongoing repression."

Elections Confirm Putin's Potemkin Democracy

"Russia today technically is a police state," says former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. "This corrupt and unethical Putin regime is trying to survive at any cost," he argues. "They know that with free and fair elections and no censorship they will not last long." As if to prove his point, last Sunday's regional elections confirmed that Russia's Potemkin democracy is dominated by two pro-Putin parties. United Russia, the principal party supporting President Vladimir Putin headed the polls but another Kremlin creation, Just Russia, also performed well.

Observers suggest that the ersatz opposition aims to undercut genuinely independent forces in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election. Independent analyst Andrei Piontkovsky believes some Putin insiders are urging him to amend the constitution and stand for a third term. Indeed, Gleb Pavlovsky, a Kremlin consultant suggested it would be "dangerous" for Putin to step down next year since "the electorate will want him to stay" and that he should do so, like Franklin Roosevelt.

"The main goal of this process is to create for the West a semblance of free and democratic electoral struggle," said independent analyst Leonid Radzikhovsky. The liberal-democratic Yabloko was banned from the ballot in St. Petersburg, its traditional stronghold.

"Voters are being invited into a Soviet-style shopping experience, where you can choose from two kinds of white bread and two kinds of brown bread," says Boris Makarenko, deputy director of the Center for Political Technologies, a Moscow-based think tank. "It's an imitation system. The Kremlin is skillfully constructing an entirely democratic facade."

Prior to the election, the Other Russia opposition group drew between 5,000-10,0000 protesters to a demonstration on Nevsky Prospekt, St. Petersburg's main commercial street. Clashes with the police led to over 130 arrests in possibly the largest protest against the Putin regime. Kasparov was joined at the demonstration by Mikhail Kasyanov, a former Prime Minister to Putin and a potential opposition candidate in the 2008 Presidential elections.

Russia's authoritarian regression has prompted much comment and analysis, and generated varying assessments of the regime's nature and prospects. Putin's government represents a "limited access order", according to one recent analysis, in which an elite exploits the political system to generate rents and uses the rents to stabilise the system in a regime based on exclusion of outsiders and balance of power among insiders. Aviezer Tucker argues that the totalitarian destruction of civil society undermined social and political pluralism, and privileged the former communist nomenklatura. With non-political elites emasculated, the nomenklatura, lacking the skills or inclination to promote market-based economic development, gradually consumes national assets for its own benefit and power.

Managed Democracy – Kremlin's New Export?

Sympathetic observers suggest Russia's regression is an essentially defensive response to perceived encirclement or the threat of democratic transition by way of "color revolutions." "The Russians are very much concerned about these different revolutions," claims Harvard's Marshall Goldman. But the Putin regime appears to be very much on the offensive, compensating for a much-hyped but markedly inferior military with a rhetorical and political offensive designed to intimidate critics and divide the West.

Indeed, one of the most disturbing things about Putinism, argues Anne Applebaum, is that "this kind of managed democracy – the use of democratic rhetoric and fake parties and fake institutions" is becoming "a model for other countries," like Venezuela and Iran.

With domestic opposition currently marginalized, the regime has turned on external critics and international agencies concerned to promote democracy and rule of law in Russia and its near neighborhood. Pro-Putin commentators first distorted then attacked the recent Freedom House report which downgraded Russia's status from "partly free" to "unfree". In his recent Munich speech, Putin singled out the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for criticism, alleging that it has become "a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries." He attacked non-governmental organizations as being "formally independent but purposefully financed and therefore under control". Putin's attack on foreign and domestic civil society organizations within Russia has elicited a largely timid and anaemic response from leading international human rights groups. (Almost as disturbing as Putin's speech was the survey that found two in three Germans agreed with Putin's claim that the US is on a mission to become the "one single master" of the world.)

Independent journalists like Anna Politovskaya have been silenced while others, like the heroic Grigori Pasko, face harassment. The regime aims to further constrain independent actors by ending foreign funding of NGOs. "We are extremely dependent on foreign funding," says Yuri Dzhibladze, head of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights, but "President Putin calls it illegitimate interference into the Russia political system promoting foreign interests in Russia."

Yet efforts to support Russia's struggling democrats and civil society activists may yet suffer from proposed "devastating cutbacks" in US democracy assistance programs. "Even the West's limited capacity should be used whenever possible," argues Russia expert Michael McFaul. He dismisses the arguments that the current authoritarian regime reflects ingrained cultural attitudes or popular preferences, and that external democracy assistance will undermine Putin, facilitating his replacement by a rabid nationalist alternative. "Just as a leader with autocratic proclivities like Putin has pushed Russia toward greater autocracy," McFaul argues, "a new leader with democratic proclivities can push Russia again toward democratization."

IN BRIEF

Burma Opposition Presses UN on Rights

Burmese democrats, including Democratic Voice of Burma, are pushing for the UN to take action against Burma's military junta. A recent 3-day strategy meeting of opposition groups resolved to enhance collaboration with internal democratic forces.

But Burmese democrats have been disappointed at European reluctance to support calls for a "special session" on Burma at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in early April, a move that could lead to a "commission of enquiry" visiting the country. The EU will likely renew a range of sanctions against the regime in May. But the EU recently let the Burmese foreign minister attend an EU-Asia summit in Helsinki, prompting protests from Burmese exile groups.

The EU is concerned about "alienating" swing voter states in the UNHRC. The UK is wary of supporting US calls for the session in case it looks like "an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy against Burma", Human Rights Watch (HRW) Asia director Brad Adams told EU Observer after briefing EU experts in Brussels. "There is an absolute international vacuum on Burma for now...[and] there will be no action at the [UN] council unless the EU pushes for it," Adams said.

Dialogue on Democratic Values in Arab World

Freedom of association does not exist fully in any Arab country, observes Sadig Al Mahdi, former Prime Minister of Sudan, even though it tests the "real and not just adopted democracy of a nation." Al Mahdi published his critique in As Sharq Al Awsat, the Arab world's most widely read daily newspaper (English translation available here), following the inaugural strategy meeting of the Club of Madrid's Dialogue on Democratic Values in the Arab World. Project implementation in Bahrain, Jordan and Morocco will be undertaken with regional partners, including the Bahrain Centre for National Studies, the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, and Maroc 2020. The project, funded by the European Commission's Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights and the United Nations Democracy Fund, aims to promote dialogue between government and civil society in each of the three countries on the issue of freedom of association as a key element of democratic reform.

Democracy that Delivers

In many countries where democracy has made inroads and elections have been held, the majority of the population has yet to experience tangible improvements in their lives. When even voters in consolidated democracies appear susceptible to populist and authoritarian appeals, better governance is essential for sustaining freedom, argues a new paper from the Center for International Private Enterprise. "Helping Build Democracy that Delivers" addresses the relationship between economic and political freedoms. It argues that while elections provide a basis for popular representation, a functional, responsive government is a sine qua non for improving people's lives.

OPPORTUNITIES

Associates, Civil Society Watch Programme (Johannesburg , South Africa)

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation implements a range of programmatic activities focusing on strengthening civil society and its role in governance and development worldwide. It also serves as a convener of global civil society leaders through its annual World Assembly. CIVICUS seeks to recruit Associates for its Civil Society Watch Programme, which seeks to expose, address and prevent threats to civil society, particularly related to freedoms of association, expression and assembly. More information is at: www.civilsocietywatch.org. Associates will be responsible for analysis, networking and advocacy in support of civil society. In particular, we are seeking to recruit Associates with experience and networks in a specific region, and associated language skills. Those with experience in the Middle East / Northern Africa (with Arabic skills) and Central Asia (with Russian skills) are particularly encouraged to apply.

The ideal candidate should have the following skills, experience and knowledge: commitment to CIVICUS' vision, mission and values; sophisticated understanding of human rights and civil society issues; experience and proven track record in human rights activism, particularly in policy-level advocacy; strong analysis and writing skills, including experience in tailoring language for different audiences; ability to successfully work individually and as a contributing member of a team; international work experience and strategic networks (Middle East / Northern Africa or Central Asia preferred); excellent written and oral communication skills in English and one other major international language; an advanced degree in a relevant discipline, preferably law, human rights or political science. Start date: as soon as possible. Duration: initially a 12 month contract will be offered. Please include a Resume (CV) with contact details of three current referees and a motivational cover letter including a statement verifying that the details within the CV are true and correct, and that the candidate agrees to the conducting of reference and background checks. Closing date: 26 March 2007. Candidates should apply to: humanresources@civicus.org. Please note that only short-listed candidates will be contacted.

Global Integrity – Researchers Wanted

Interested journalists, researchers, social scientists, and academic experts from any country with expertise in governance and corruption issues should send a resume/curriculum vitae (including full contact information and names of three references) to info@globalintegrity.org no later than April 15, 2007. Professionalism, objectivity, and independence are critical qualifications; a working proficiency in English is strongly preferred. Global Integrity typically pays lead reporters approximately US$1,250 for preparing the Reporter's Notebooks, lead researchers approximately US$2,000 for scoring the Integrity Indicators, and readers US$250 for each country they read for (some readers read for more than one country and are compensated additionally).

To learn more about collaborating on the 2007 Global Integrity Report, go here. Additional information about Global Integrity is available here.

World Youth Movement for Democracy Essay Contest

The World Youth Movement for Democracy is running an essay contest for young people to share their perspectives on democracy. Young activists, students, and citizens aged 14 to 30 are invited to write short essays (under 2500 words) reflecting on their experiences with the ideals, the realities, and the future of democracy in their communities and countries. This essay contest is part of WYMD's Global Youth Campaign for Democracy, which encourages young people around the world to be part of political processes in their respective communities and regions. The contest is being held worldwide during the month of March, with final submissions due April 15, 2007. All submissions must respond to at least one of the following questions: Where do you find democracy in your community? What does democracy mean to you, your friends, your community? Why do you work for democracy? Why are you an activist/active citizen? What is your vision of an ideal society? What are some steps you can take to get there?

Essays may be submitted in Arabic, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, or Spanish. All essays will be reviewed by the Working Group members of the WYMD. Three finalists will be selected from each of six regions (Eurasia, Europe, Latin America, Middle East and North Africa, North America, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa), and five from Asia. The finalist essays will be included in an international publication. From the regional finalists, two international finalists will be selected to receive a scholarship to participate in the Fifth Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy, taking place in Kiev, Ukraine during April 2008. (Please note you must be over age 18 by April 2008 to qualify for participation in the WMD Assembly).

Submissions must be under 2500 words and emailed to wymdcontest@youthlink.org no later than April 15. Please include your full name, birthday, country, contact information (mailing address, email address, and phone number), and affiliated organization (if applicable). For more information about this essay contest or the World Youth Movement for Democracy, please visit www.wymd.youthlink.org or send an email to wymdcontest@youthlink.org.

Summer Policy Intern, Project on Middle East Democracy, Washington, DC

The Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) seeks to organize and support a constituency in favor of a more consistent US democracy promotion policy in the Middle East. To pursue this goal, POMED provides timely policy briefs for Members of Congress and their staff, forums for constructive dialogue, and a monthly newsletter highlighting trends in the region and in US policy. An internship with POMED offers a unique opportunity to not just observe what happens on the Hill, but to take part. You will not be answering phones or sorting mail. As a Policy Intern you will play a critical role in supporting our work by tracking legislation and member votes, reporting on congressional hearings, adding content to POMED's website, assisting with events, and conducting research. Policy Interns may also be invited to publish articles in POMED's monthly newsletter or to contribute to the drafting of policy papers.

Successful applicants will be bright, highly motivated individuals with strong academic records and an interest in foreign policy and/or the Middle East. Candidates should be committed to POMED's mission and principles and have excellent communication skills. Extra consideration will be given to candidates with experience in online organizing and/or website construction. The internship is unpaid. To apply, please send a cover letter and resume to andrew.albertson@pomed.org Be sure to indicate your availability in the cover letter. Short writing samples also welcome. Please send application materials no later than March 23.

EVENTS

March 12, 2007, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Attraction and Abandonment: Political Morality and Communist Ideals, Paul M. Hollander, the Davis Center and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI, 1150 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Why did many well-known supporters of communist states become disillusioned with these systems and their ideals? How did disillusioned supporters in communist societies differ from those in the West? Why have some notable Western intellectuals resisted disillusionment with these ideals and ideologies? Paul Hollander explores these matters with special reference to political morality, a sense of identity, and the relationship between personal and political attributes and motives. Paul Hollander grew up in Hungary, which he left following the defeat of the revolution of 1956. He taught at Harvard for five years and has taught at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for thirty-two years. He has been an associate of the Russian Research Center at Harvard (currently Davis Center) since 1963. He is the author of numerous books, including The End of Commitment: Revolutionaries, Intellectuals, and Political Morality (Ivan R. Dee, 2006). Register online at www.aei.org/event1377.

Tuesday, March 13th at 5 p.m. in 2203 Rayburn Bldg, Capitol Hill. Persecution of Religious Belief in Sudan. Task Force on International Religious Freedom, a bi-partisan group within the Congressional Human Rights Caucus (CHRC). Speakers: Felice Gaer, Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Nina Shea, Co-Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute; Andrew Natsios, The President's Special Envoy for Sudan (Invited); Roger Winter, Former Special Representative on Sudan of the Deputy Secretary of State. To RSVP, please email communications@uscirf.gov or call Jennifer Frey at 202-523-3240 ext. 135.

March 16th, 2007; 10:00 am - 2:30 pm. Stability and Democracy in Pakistan: In the Shadow of Terrorism. This conference will focus on the paradoxical role Pakistan plays in the struggle against global Islamist terrorism. The country is both part of the solution and part of the problem. Regional experts will assess the challenges Pakistan faces in its struggle for stability and democracy. They will also assess how U.S policy could help promote these objectives while eliminating terrorism. Moderator: Hillel Fradkin, Chair, Islam and Democracy Project, Hudson Institute. FIRST SESSION: 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon: The Rising Threat from Sectarian Terrorists and Radical Islamists (Khaled Ahmed, Woodrow Wilson Center); Dysfunction of the Pakistani State (Husain Haqqani, Hudson Institute); Change and Continuity in Pakistan's Foreign Policy: How Can the US Influence Change for a Stable Democratic Pakistan? (Marvin Weinbaum, Middle East Center). LUNCH: 12:15-1:15. SECOND SESSION: 1:15-2:15 PM: Pakistan's Eroding Law and Order (Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, Pakistan); What's Happening to Waziristan: A look at the New Taliban Problem (Khawar Rizvi, Pakistani Journalist Specializing in the Tribal Areas); What Sustains Islamist Militancy in Pakistan (Christine Fair, US Institute of Peace). To RSVP, please email weitz@hudson.org. Betsy and Walter Stern Conference Room, Hudson Institute1015 15th St, NW, 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005.

20th March 2007. 3pm-4.15pm, The Grimond Room, Portcullis House, Houses of Parliament, London. "The Shia Democratic Alternative: Challenging Iranian Clerical Rule to Bring Peace and Security to the Middle East". The Henry Jackson Society cordially invites you to a Parliamentary discussion on "The Shia Democratic Alternative: Challenging Iranian Clerical Rule to Bring Peace and Security to the Middle East" with special guest speakers Sheikh Mohammad Kazem Al-Khaqani (founder member of the campaign to forge commitment to democratic governance in the Shia world) and Adel Assadinia (former Iranian diplomat and Member of the Majlis). The meeting will be chaired by Gisela Stuart MP. The meeting will introduce the concept of the Shia Democratic Alternative being pursued by Sheikh al-Khaqani and its potential to bring peace and security to the Middle East by undermining Iranian theocratic rule. Mr Assadinia will also be using his intimate knowledge of the Iranian regime to shed light on its activities in supporting extremist groups throughout the region and its hitherto unsuspected role in Dubai. Sheikh Mohammad Kazem Al-Khaqani is the son of the late Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Taher Al-Khaqani, a leader of the Arab population of Ahwaz (Khuzestan province in Iran). Sheikh Al-Khaqani is continuing his father's work in opposing the Iranian regime and the principle of Velaayat-e-Faghiih (governance by religious jurist). He is building a Shia Democratic Alternative with like-minded Shia leaders.

Adel Assadinia was Iran's Consul General in Dubai before he defected. He had also served two terms as a Majlis member for Ahwaz, was Vice-Chairman of the Majlis Foreign Affairs Committee, was adviser to the Foreign Minister under the Khatami administration and had served as Iran's Ambassador to Portugal. Please RSVP to Alan Mendoza on 07974 812 782 or alan.mendoza@henryjacksonsociety.org

March 21, 2007, 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Managing Global Insecurity. Keynote address by Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union. The Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC. While the United States and its allies struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan, tensions in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation concerns in Iran and North Korea, and new transnational threats such as terrorism show little sign of abating. Solutions to these crises and threats require sustained multilateral cooperation at a time when the absence of American leadership has left global security institutions chronically weak.

The Brookings Institution, the Center for International Cooperation at NYU, and the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University launch a new project on managing global insecurity with a keynote speech by Javier Solana. The new project seeks to demonstrate that American leadership and investment can make multilateral institutions more effective. Carlos Pascual, vice president and director of Brookings's Foreign Policy Studies program, will provide introductory remarks and moderate the discussion.

22 March 2007, 6.15pm. "What's Left? How Liberals Lost their Way". Democratiya.com, The Euston Manifesto, Engage, and Mishcon de Reya are delighted to invite you to a conversation with Nick Cohen. In what *The Guardian* called "one of the most discussed current affairs books of the new year" Cohen tells the story of how parts of the Liberal-Left of the 20th Century ended up supporting the far Right of the 21st in the shape of Islamic extremism. Copies of "What's Left?" will be on sale at the event. Venue: Mishcon de Reya, Summit House, 12 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4QD. Interviewing Nick will be Anthony Julius, lawyer and academic, founding member of both Engage and The Euston Manifesto, and author of "TS Eliot, Anti-Semitism, and Literary Form". Tickets for this event are 10GBP and can be obtained from Alan Johnson, Editor of Democratiya, 3 High Tenterfell, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 4PG.

March 22 - 23, 2007. Islamist Politics: Contemporary Trajectories in the Arab World. 9am-5pm, Copley Formal Lounge, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. For nearly thirty years the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS) at Georgetown University has held an annual two-day symposium on a topic of interest and relevance to scholars and specialists in the field of Middle Eastern Studies. The Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. 32nd annual symposium on topics of scholarship in the Middle East. To RSVP, go here.

March 23, 12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m. Conversation on Sovereignty, Stephen Krasner, State Department's Director for Policy Planning. Dean Acheson Auditorium, US Department of State. The Secretary's Open Forum, US Department of State. Please RSVP to foleycs@state.gov. For those who do not have a State Department ID, security clearance procedures require that you submit your full name, birth-date, driver's license number, citizenship, affiliation.

March 29, 2007. Is Democracy In Peril? A Global and Regional Assessment 9:00 am - 1:30 pm, City View Room, Seventh Floor, The Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW. Freedom in the World, 2007, A report on global trends in freedom and democracy, Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director, Freedom House. 10:45 - 12:15 A look at freedom and democracy in four regions: Middle East: "Is Arab Democracy Dead?" Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, The Elliott School of International Affairs. Eurasia: "Democratization and its Absence in Post-Soviet Eurasia", Henry Hale, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, The Elliott School of International Affairs. Latin America: "Latin America: A Shift to the Left?", Cynthia McClintock, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, The Elliott School of International Affairs. Africa: "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Building Democracy in Africa", Gina Lambright, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Elliott School of International Affairs. A question and answer session with the panel and Jennifer Windsor will follow. 12:15 - 12:45 Buffet luncheon. 12:45 - 1:30 "Taking Stock of Democracy's Global Travails", Thomas Carothers, Vice President for Studies - International Politics and Government, Carnegie Endowment for Peace 1:30 pm Close.

Thursday, April 12, 2007. "Democratization and Civil War" - Jack Snyder, Columbia University. The Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, 1957 E Street, NW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20052. Further details here.