Apropos of this I just heard on the radio about the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery initiative[1] which tries to recover "misappropriated" funds from corrupt officials who primarily launder money by buying real estate in the US through off shore shell companies.
There are advantages to arms length transactions, and ownership that is determined by possession as much as records held somewhere. It's nice to be able to escape your country with some of the wealth your family has built up when a dictator takes over. Or maybe, it is only necessary to shelter that wealth for a short time during a period of relative political insanity.
Of course those same abilities enable organized crime, and the ability of dictators to destroy their own countries, then live decadent lives in a country that wasn't ruined by people like themselves.
Reminds me of the scene from Wall Street where Charlie Sheen asks the airport worker where a private jet is heading, and then deduces which company is being targeted for an acquisition.
When Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglass, executives would fly to two unrelated cities and then drive to the actual meeting place for negotiations, specifically to foil this sort of surveillance.
I remember reading how people would keep track of if/where a CEO of larger company would fly prior to a quarterly report. Apparently there was a strong correlation between short trips to holiday places and good earnings reports.
I'm curious how they are ascertaining whether a dictator is on board since I don't think a flight manifest would be available, so while tracking the tail numbers lets you know what country and might not always tell you who is on board.
This brings up an interesting question though, if it is not a dictator but rather a rank file U.N envoy why are they traveling by private jet?
Anyway I think this project is neat and worthwhile. There was someone a while back that was doing something similar, albeit without a twitter bot, that was tracking the CIA's rendition flights using similar tactics.
They cannot know if the dictator is on board, of course, but it could just be one of their lackeys flying to Geneva with a suitcase full of cash to deposit in a Swiss bank account.
I don't know what is your personal assessment of an authoritarian state but in my book, a country with a single party (or where the single party decides who can be elected or not), and where the head of state is or was the head of the single party is an authoritarian regime.
I'm not saying that it isn't authoritarian (in my Libertarian book most western countries including the US and most of the supranational EU organisms are authoritarian to some degree)...
I'm saying that "authoritarian" doesn't equal "dictatorship".
Then Russia is a democracy. Agree? Because, you know, there are many more parties than in the US.
Oh wait, they say Russia is a dictatorship. Oh yeah, in fact in Russia you have international observers during elections, in the US not. In Russia you have 4 parties in the Duma, in the US just two. In Russia you have a pletora of parties in the elections, in the US just two.
I am seriously angry they didn't add the biggest dictatorship in the world, the American Empire!
> What do you think would happen in either of those countries if there were demonstrations like the ones that have been going on in the US (e.g. because of police brutality and greedy banks)?
Well, before the world famous show called 'The War on Terror' premiered post-9/11, there were a series of violent clashes between dissidents in the West and Globalist forces.
Thankfully, the Empire's Jihadists made a 'timely' decision to turn on and bite the hand that fed them shoulder fired missiles, and the Western voices that were raised against Globalism before 9/11 were no more. (Interestingly enough, if one speculates that the terror events in this period are false flag state terrorism, there is a straight line between the application of violence and intended consequences in the target, per "old school" terrorism.)
> What do you think would happen in either of those countries if there were demonstrations like the ones that have been going on in the US (e.g. because of police brutality and greedy banks)?
Apples and oranges.
Every state will react forcefully and violently when its power basis, or vulnerabilities, are challenged. The specimens that you are referencing have not yet advanced to the level of Western states and still rely on fairly traditional means of maintaining their grip on power. Further, in many of these nations, the general urban population is far more politically literate than their Western counterparts.
What is not leaking is an informed contribution, in your reply, to the conversation.
(If you are insinuating that my views are formed by InfoWars.com, permit me to disabuse you of entertaining such thoughts regarding my readings and reflections.)
> Then Russia is a democracy. Agree? Because, you know, there are many more parties than in the US.
It is important to look at what the phrase "1-party state" means. By its literal definition, you are right. But generally, it may not be used in a literal sense and one has to be open to it. In this case, it meant that side effects bought from a 1 party state such as issues with civil rights etc. This is the reason you have an index to measure it. It brings together different facets and creates a score.
After looking at your comment history, this might be the first time that I've seen the "web brigades" (Веб-бригады) at work on a site I frequent. I'm not sure how to feel about that. :|
I'd consider Russia as being accurately described in that list. Putin has been in power..how long now? And yes I agree with your sentiments on the US as well.
The thing about the US is that there isn't an apparent law forbidding the forming of 3rd+ parties like there is in other countries.
> In Russia you have a pletora of parties in the elections, in the US just two.
Nit: in the US, there are dozens of parties. Most don't get the votes to win, but they exist: Greens, Independent, Libertarian, etc. etc. Bernie Sanders was of neither party.
Most of those parties don't get a platform, which is a lot of the reason they don't get votes. The Republicans and Democrats control the debates, how to register as a candidate, etc and the media has failed by perpetuating the "two party system" myth.
You're mixing two things, "empire" (i.e., whether a country is being a dick to other countries and people), and "dictatorship" (whether it is being a dick to its own people).
It's not like having more parties makes you automatically a democracy. Even North Korea has 4 parties. But having one is a clear no go. Always. There is not even anything to discuss or to whitewash. Like in NK or Russia.
Names and faces are unknown, but their instruments of directing and managing the "empire" are becoming more visible by each passing day. 2016 was a crazy year but there is that silver lining.
[p.s. edit]:
Undoing Democracy:
Neoliberalism's Remaking of State and Subject
This book is a theoretical consideration of the ways that
neoliberalism, a peculiar form of reason that configures all
aspects of existence in economic terms, is quietly undoing basic
elements of democracy. These elements include vocabularies,
principles of justice, political cultures, habits of citizenship,
practices of rule, and above all, democratic imaginaries.
My argument is not merely that markets and money are corrupting
or degrading democracy, that political institutions and outcomes
are increasingly dominated by finance and corporate capital, or
that democracy is being replaced by plutocracy -- rule by and for
the rich. Rather, neoliberal reason, ubiquitous today in statecraft
and the workplace, in jurisprudence, education, culture, and a vast
range of quotidian activity, is converting the distinctly /political/
character, meaning, and operation of democracy's constituent elements
into /economic/ ones. Liberal democratic institutions, practices,
and habits may not survive this conversion. Radical democratic dreams
may not either.
Thus. this book charts both a disturbing contemporary condition and
the potential barrenness for future democratic projects contained in
this troubled present. The institutions and principles aimed at
securing democracy, the cultures required to nourish it, the energies
needed to animate it, and the citizens practicing, caring for, or
desiring it -- all these are challenged by neoliberalism's
"economization" of political life and other heretofore noneconomic
spheres and activities.
- Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution, Ch. 1
/emphasis/ in the original.
I'm puzzled because the power to tag someone as a "dictator" comes from some journos at TheEconomist (the company who builds the ranking which feeds the bot)...
Meanwhile the rest of the world does business as usual with what some prefer to name as "political leaders". That's why I posted the image of Zuck doing business.
Do you really think that Xi Jinping is a "dictator"?
I hope you understand that the final index scores come from an input of different factors that are considered crucial to a democracy.
The Economist Intelligent Unit does not randomly sit around and tag countries as authoritarian regimes not. They have a systematic method that brings about those scores. You can argue with the method but it would be wise not to dismiss the rankings because "some journos do it". That would be ad hominem fallacy.
People can say whatever they want; the "power" of the journalists at The Economist come from the number of people who agree with them and trust their judgement.
Anyway, regarding Xi: yes, he is behaving more and more like one, actually. There's a reason why people nicknamed him "Xitler".
And you are right. All countries may be authoritarian on certain things while not being on others. Therefore, no country gets a perfect 10/10 score on the index.
>"In practice, only one political party, the CPC, holds effective power at the national level. Its dominance is such that China is effectively a one-party state. Eight minor parties also participate in the political system. However, they have limited power on a national level and are almost completely subservient to the CPC"
A small codebase like this could make a good example of async/await which is now available in Node 7 [1] with the --harmony_async_await flag. Since it is not even using Promises but simple callbacks instead, massive improvement is possible.
[1]http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/10/13/497706638/w...