Desert Island Boy: Behind Door No. 2

It's a new Arab spring. The dread of winter is gone and a new dawn has arrived, one that will propel the peoples of the Middle East into the Third Millennium of the Common Era. Purple fingers in Iraq, cedar/Gucci revolutions in Lebanon, blue/Versace revolutions in Kuwait and demands for constitutional reforms in Bahrain. were all symbolic victories in the global war against terrorism.

That's exactly what is at issue. Are all those victories merely symbolic? Bahrain adopted a democratic experiment three years ago, drafting a new constitution, installing a bi-cameral parliament and guaranteeing personal and political freedoms to its people. Bahrain was meant to be the example to Arab nations to reform themselves rather than having reform imposed upon it from outside.

No one complained that reform would have been a bad thing. People all over the world were ecstatic that the common man on the Arab street was to be given voice for his concerns, and forums to participate in self-governance. These were all seen as building blocks to a society where resources would be fairly distributed and opportunities for advancing one's self and ones community would abound. Nations welcoming reform would in turn find their goods and services welcomed in world markets. Their more dignified population would be more productive and would soon churn out goods that could compete in global markets.

Well, two Oxford economists have written a paper insinuating that we may have gotten it backwards.

Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler have just published a paper on oil-rich economies and their transition to democracy. While in very other type of society, the advent of free and fair elections nearly always herald economic growth; in oil-rich societies free and fair elections are better left for the end of the transition.

The Washington Post has the following editorial on the matter. It focuses on Nigeria and Iraq, but the implication for Bahrain and the Gulf are enormous. I agree with it and have been writing about it all along. Voting goes only so far. The greater issues facing the Gulf states have been resource distribution, nepotism, a non-transparent governing structure, endemic corruption, an unproductive workforce and a lazy elite that does not want to be challenged.

Let me repeat that for you again. The greater issues facing the Gulf states have been resource distribution, nepotism, a non-transparent governing structure, endemic corruption, an unproductive workforce and a lazy elite that does not want to be challenged.

I particularly found interesting the following paragraphs.

In oil states, however, the opposite holds true--at least if elections are held in the absence of checks and balances. In countries where natural-resource profits come to a fifth of GDP, the switch from autocracy to electoral competition lowers the annual growth rate by a hefty 2.1 percentage points. Unless there are checks and balances, elections cause oil-rich countries to invest less than they should -- and to invest badly. As a result they fail to create the public infrastructure that makes growth possible.

Why might elections promote growth in most countries but cause underinvestment in oil states? In ordinary countries, where the state has limited cash at its disposal, the most efficient way to attract votes is to provide public goods: low inflation, rule of law, infrastructure that's carefully chosen to benefit the whole society. So elections promote pro-growth policies. In petro-states, by contrast, the simplest way to attract votes is to buy them. Politicians can do that by subsidizing food or handing out government jobs in exchange for loyalty, bribes that promote consumption at the expense of investment. Or they can blow money on projects whose real purpose is to generate kickbacks, so what little investment there is tends to be junky.

And later on

But in oil-rich societies a freedom of information act, an independent public prosecutor, and some separation of power over the public purse are essential to counteract incentives for corruption.

So for a couple of years, a number of Bahrainis have complained about how the road to freedom has been littered with shit (It's a wordplay in Arabic, trust me on this). Well, now the cat is out of the bag.

On April 24th, 2005, Bahrain's Ministry of Information (reports of whose demise had been greatly exaggerated) announced a six month plan to force webmasters (and bloggers) to join the bureaucratic dependency program that traditional print and broadcast media have always been on. All websites in, of, around, on, under and whatever preposition you can think of, relating to Bahrain and Bahrainis must be registered with the Ministry of Information. One publication had the audacity to pass off the edict as a favor to the people, as a measure to protect their security. Funny, I don't recall hearing anyone howl in fear of new ideas.

Bahrain's judiciary inspires no confidence among its citizens. It's press has the ignominious distinction of having LOST ground in the annual standings for freedom. And don't even ask about corruption and transparency in public policy. (Thanks to Scorpio for pointing out the article about Sage Arabian Pulse. The point to be taken is the one where democratic reform is a distant third among concerns to the business community, well after improved foriegn investment and the clear winner, less bureacracy)

Bloggers have been highlighting these issues for years. Forums have vented the frustraions of ordinary Bahrainis for nearly a decade. Putting these entities on the government leash is a slap in the face of every oreintal who aspires for free and fair societies. Bahrainis need international pressure to give us true freedom, not its empty trappings.

Don't make me repeat myself.