Some people have criticised that I've compared the US election with that in Turkmenistan: let me explain. The OSCE has 57 participating member-states, among them some vile tyrannies. Turkmenistan is probably the worst, which is why I use it for benchmarking.
If you were to take key indicators of democratic elections - from campaign and media environment to campaign finance to voter enfranchisement to election administration, you will see that the US doesn't do too well in these categories. I'd say it's in the bottom 50 percent.
Of course, there are many others that are much worse. Central Asia, Russia, and Belarus are examples. There are others that are much, much better. Having observed elections in Mongolia, I'd say Mongolia is way better across all indicators. Much of Western Europe is way better.
Put it this way: if the US applied to the Harvard of democracies, where the admission rate is 5%, its application would not be seriously considered.
Okay, it might get in on the athletic scholarship.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @osce_odihr report on the US election is out: osce.org/files/f/docume…. A great read. It's lucky that Trump seems to have been voted out because if he stayed, there'd be every ground to say that his election was not free and fair.
The report highlights Trump's efforts to "harm public trust in democratic institutions" & his widespread use of the administrative resource. And this here: "There was a widespread perception that federal judges often voted on election-related matters along partisan principles."😳
Check out, also, the section on campaign finance (deeply flawed and open to abuse) & voter disenfranchisement. "These restrictions on voting rights ... contravene principles of universal suffrage,...as provided for by OSCE commitments and other international standards."
Check out the juicy evidence, too. "But where there is one conspiracy, another, greater one is always lurking—like the credits and intertitles of this moviefilm, which flash for a moment in Russian Cyrillic (not Kazakh), only to be obscured by English."
Not entirely true by the way since the credits are partially in actual Kazakh. But so what. "Borat" also speaks Hebrew and Polish in the film - is this a pointer to an Israeli-Polish conspiracy to undermine the US?
Reading here Brezhnev's speeches at internal party conferences. On one occasion (in 1973) he went into great detail about how the Soviets were lagging behind the West in high-tech exports, and were just not competitive on the international market.
Here he is complaining how the Netherlands is ahead of the USSR in foreign trade.
Later he talks about how the Soviets are falling behind in acquiring foreign licenses (compared to countries like Japan):
Some people have criticised my negative assessment of Catherine Belton's engagement with her sources, suggesting that I selectively pointed to one or two dubious sources. I am receptive to this criticism; therefore, I am running another thread (the last one, I promise).
This thread is about Belton's claim that the KGB siphoned off billions of dollars from the Soviet economy in the final days/months of the Soviet regimes. Where do we find this claim? Right here.
Well I don't normally respond to tweets from people I don't know but this thread allows me to highlight some further problematic sourcing in Belton's book. You can see that here Belton argues that certain "progressive members" of the KGB working at IMEMO had pushed for reforms.
You begin to wonder here who Belton is specifically referring to. The Institute of World Economy (IMEMO) was generally known for "liberal" proclivities, and this had little to do with the KGB or the GRU.
The Institute's director Nikolai Inozemtsev was attacked by the Party hardliners for "revisionism," and had to leverage his ties with Brezhnev to protect himself and his institute. You begin to wonder whether Belton had read anything on IMEMO history.
I've noticed there's a lot of public interest in what I make of Catherine Belton's Putin's People. Fine. Let me give another example of problematic sourcing, and I will use this as an opportunity to address broader issues about how we deal with authenticity of sources.
Belton's book begins with a remarkable conversation between "Putin's banker" and exiled oligarch Sergei Pugachev and the well-known Yeltsin associate Valentin Yumashev. The two discuss how Putin came to power and their role in his rise.