In Calcutta, when some younger kid came along and insisted on joining the game my friends were playing, we would let the new kid in, but only after whispering into each other's ears the words, ell bell.
An ell bell is a player who thinks he is participating but, in truth, is merely going through the motions. Everybody knew that a goal scored by him was not a real goal.
As a child, mastering the cruel art of ell bell was important. When a new kid arrived, accompanied by a doting mother, we could convey to one another with a mere glance that the kid would be an ell bell.
The technique of ell bell also thrives in the adult world. All of us can recall collective decision-making situations -- a selection committee, a team for drafting rules -- where some members were ell bells.
All of us have been ell bells at one time or another, though we may not be aware of it. What's true of children and adults is also true of international institutions. Indeed, organizations that are officially committed to involving all nations in their decision-making are often controlled by small groups of powerful nations, while others merely go through the motions of participation. The WTO, supposedly run on the principle of one country one vote, actually has its agenda selected behind the stage by a small group of nations. It is now standard practice for international organizations publishing a report to involve all the "stakeholders" and to reflect their opinions. So the evolving report is usually put up on a Web site and suggestions are invited from one and all -- NGOs, trade unions and other organizations of civil society.
This promotes a sense of participation, but as a friend, seasoned in such matters, informed me, the key in the end is to ignore all the comments received and to write up the report as if there were no Web site and no participation.
Increasingly, free expression of opinion does not influence or restrain how government behaves. Consider the US. People expressed their opinion freely -- in newspapers, on television, in Internet chat rooms -- concerning President George W. Bush's planned war on Iraq. Never before was there so much opposition to a war before it occurred. Yet the invasion went ahead.
The same holds true for Britain and Australia, where public opposition to war counted for naught. Part of what happened -- or, rather what didn't happen -- is admirable: almost no effort was made to muzzle criticism of the government, as happens in China and scores of dictatorial countries. But the world's great democracies -- the US, India, the UK and others -- are increasingly adept at not allowing freely expressed opinions to constrain what the government does.
The current war in Iraq is perhaps the strongest proof of this. Leaving aside the immorality of this war -- and immoral it is -- I wish to draw attention to this increasing ability and inclination of democracies to "deal" with (meaning neutralize) public opinion. They have embraced the ell bell strategy: let people believe that their opinion counts, that they are participating in their nation's decision making, while keeping them out of the real game.
As democracies mature they become ever more practiced at managing opinion, and in many cases, at shaping opinion. Every time Hans Blix commented on the UN inspections of Iraq that he was conducting, members of the Bush administration would paraphrase what Blix said. The paraphrasing would subtly change Blix's comments to suit America's case for war. By repeating the altered comments, it was hoped, mass opinion would shift in favor of the war.
Overthrowing a totalitarian regime and organizing elections may be hard, but the harder task is to go from voting to establishing a true democracy. For people accustomed to living in a totalitarian state, learn what participation means is not easy. Hence the popular belief that democracies, like wine, improve with age.
While this may be true, there is a downside to maturity. Just as citizens in a democracy continuously learn to participate, democratic governments continuously learn how to get their way despite the participation. It is no use denying that civic participation too often serves only to legitimize a sham.
We must recognize and confront this problem to prevent established democracies from atrophying and to help new democracies become more effective. For it is not only morally wrong to leave nations and communities feeling marginalized and without voice; it is a recipe for frustration, rage and terrorism.
Kaushik Basu is professor of economics and director of the Program on Comparative Economic Development at Cornell University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
On Tuesday, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) issued a statement criticizing Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a student from Shanghai’s Fudan University, saying she had offended the sensibilities of Taiwanese. It also called for the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation — established by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — which had organized the tour group, to remind group members to be careful with their statements. Song, during a visit to a baseball stadium in Taichung, said that the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team (中國台北隊) ... we wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and
“Integrated Diplomacy” (總和外交) is the guiding principle of Taiwan’s current foreign policy. It seeks to mobilize technology, capital and talent for global outreach, strengthening Taiwan’s international connections. However, without a robust information security mechanism, such efforts risk being reduced to superficial courtesy calls. Security clearance serves as the “entrance examination results” for government agency personnel in sensitive positions, qualifying them to access sensitive information. Senior aides in the US Congress must also possess security clearance to assist lawmakers in handling classified budgets. However, security clearance is not an automatic right or a blanket necessity for accessing sensitive information. Access is granted only
RSS