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
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS