Search

Begin New Search Topic Governance Content Type Working Paper Publishing Institution MIT Center for International Studies

1. Wilson’s Radical Vision for Global Governance

Author:
Erez Manela
Publication Date:
04-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
In recent years, Woodrow Wilson has returned to feature promi- nently in the public discourse on the role of the United States in the world. For students of U.S. foreign relations, this is hardly a sur- prising development. Wilson was responsible for articulating a vision of the U.S. role in the world—usually described as “liberal interna- tionalism”—that has remained, despite well-known flaws and scores of critics over the years, dominant in shaping American rhetoric and self-image, if not always policies, vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Competing foreign policy postures, such as isolationism or “national interest” realism, have surely been influential in particular eras and contexts. But they have failed to match the ideological and popular appeal of liberal internationalism, which has echoed so compellingly the most basic ideas many Americans hold about who they are, what their country is about, and what it should stand for in the world.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Liberalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Pakistan's Governance Imperative

Author:
Paula A. Newberg
Publication Date:
05-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
After the kind of year that no country ever wants, with its government in crisis, repression replacing even the most remote notion of good government, political assassination, and terror stand- ing in the wings, Pakistan elected a new parliament in February. Led initially by a coalition of three parties previously deemed out- casts by President Pervez Musharraf, its cabinet of familiar political faces quickly agreed in principle, and at least in public, on a compel- ling and daunting political agenda. It reversed some emergency rul- ings, negotiated a hasty truce with insurgents living in the conten- tious tribal agency of Waziristan—and then broke down on divisive issues left to them by Musharraf. Domestic politics and foreign policy alike are now fair game for ambitious politicians long removed from power. This isn’t the first time that civilians have inherited the detritus of a mili- tary-led state, and past success has been elusive at best. Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gillani therefore faces not only the problems created by Musharraf ’s national security state, but also the accumulation of decades of mangled constitutions, mixed civil-military law, weakened state institutions and fragmented political parties. Today’s refreshing, if cautious good will nonetheless reflects a political order that was fragile and complex before Musharraf ’s 1999 coup d’etat, and remains so now. The recent blur of pronouncements, plans and policies reflects this history as it touches on Pakistan’s perennially sensitive topics: jumbled electoral rules, imbalances between provincial powers and central government authority, political corruptions long deemed acceptable, and a testy relationship between parliament and the president. Parliament is understandably keen to replace the opacity of Musharraf ’s tenure with a transparency that matches Pakistan’s avid, 21st century media, and in so doing, cement the coalition’s public image.
Topic:
Governance, Democracy, Leadership, and Political Crisis
Political Geography:
Pakistan and Middle East

3. Who Leads Russia?

Author:
Elizabeth A. Wood
Publication Date:
06-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Ever since Dmitri Medvedev’s nomination to succeed Vladimir Putin as president of Russia, followed by his election and now his inauguration, Kremlin watchers, both Russian and Western, have been discussing the so-called “Putin-Medvedev tandem” and asking who will really lead Russia. Is the duumvirate stable? Will it degen- erate into squabbling among the Kremlin clans behind the scenes? The pundits have identified four plausible scenarios. One is that President Medvedev will indeed have the principal power, including the possibility of ousting Mr. Putin as prime minister, or marginalizing him, since the Russian political system has been “super- presidential,” i.e., strongly centered in the presidency, since the adoption of the new Constitution by Boris Yeltsin in 1993. The second is that the system will remain cen- tered around Prime Minister Putin through informal power mechanisms that have much more weight in this system than do the formal powers granted by the Constitution; this is the scenario I consider most likely. A third is that the United Russia Party will emerge as dominant in this situation, able to make or break presidents through the electoral process. A fourth is that the whole country, or at least the government, will fall apart because of feuding among the followers of the president and the prime minister who will be unable to decide on the fair division of spoils that come with holding power in this country that covers one-sixth of the earth’s land mass. Because the corridors of power are so completely impenetrable to outsiders, no one knows what will happen. Still, Putin and his advisers’ actions in the months leading up to the election and then inauguration of Dmitri Medvedev as president of the Russian Federation show some answers.
Topic:
Governance, Geopolitics, Leadership, and Political stability
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

4. Turkey's Crisis and Future

Author:
Doğu Ergil
Publication Date:
08-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The two trials that have been occupying the Turkish national agenda today are likely to be the milestones of Turkey’s ability to rid itself of an opaque regime shaped under bureaucratic tutelary. One of the trials concerned the closure of the incumbent Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and has finally been concluded, with a narrow victory for the ruling party and democratic governance. The other is the Ergenekon case, which may unravel the illegal nationalist organization intent on overthrowing the government and bringing an isolationist dictatorial regime under the guise of national sovereignty. The attempt to close the AK Party—deemed the center of anti-secular activities threat- ening the state—began with a Constitutional Court verdict annulling a newly enacted law that lifted a headscarf ban at universities. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reply was to accuse the Court of overriding Parliament and threatening national stabili- ty—its headscarf policy is part of democratic reforms to advance free speech and minor- ity rights and has the support of the EU, which Turkey seeks to join. This is true, how- ever much the party lost enthusiasm for liberalizing and democratizing Turkey’s system as part of its EU bid. In its late July decision, the judiciary narrowly allowed the AK Party to survive—and, with other political and civic organizations, to broaden the base of political participation and public discourse. This is all to the good, though the fact that the case was brought to begin with remain troubling. The question is whether or not Turkey will be able to expose its alternative history, bludgeoned by human rights violations, thousands of unsolved assassinations, restric- tions put on liberties, and military interventions in the political process and start a new age marked with liberal ideals.
Topic:
Governance, Authoritarianism, Leadership, and Bureaucracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Asia

5. The Global Financial Crisis and Obstacles to U.S. Leadership

Author:
David Singer
Publication Date:
10-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The regulatory environment in the U.S., however, is likely to change. The Treasury’s blueprint calls for the disman- tling of OTS, the enhancement of the Fed’s supervisory authority, and the creation of a national insurance regulator to replace the 50 separate regulators. Regulatory consolida- tion in the U.S. might be the most important catalyst for the creation of new international regulatory standards in banking. Consider the immense challenges of creating a global standard—which most likely cannot occur without U.S. support—when the agencies within the U.S. are at odds with one another! Ironically, U.S. investment banks themselves may have cleared one obstacle to international coopera- tion: the remaining free-standing securities firms (Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) have opted to transform themselves into bank holding companies. This move reduces the SEC’s influence and gives the Fed a more uniform role in supervising financial institutions. Nevertheless, there is still consider- able fragmentation in the regulation of a range of activities that clearly have an important bearing on the stability of the banking system. If today’s financial crisis triggers the institutional consolidation of domestic financial regulation, then fruitful international negotiations will be more likely in the future. But until such consolidation occurs, the welter of U.S. regulatory agencies will face considerable obstacles in addressing the complicated inter- actions between banking, disintermediation, and capital markets that are at the root of today’s financial crisis. And the fragmentation of accountability among regulators and policymakers will continue to hamper U.S. leadership in preventing such a terrible crisis from happening again.
Topic:
Governance, Regulation, Financial Institutions, and Banking
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America