If you think the ongoing cat-fights in the Mongolian khural (see an excellent report in Word and HTML format) represent the world’s most juvenile bickering, Mexico’s presidential candidates give the MPs a run for their money with highly personal attacks. This, of course, has been going on for years, but it certainly sets an ethical low point that campaigns for democratic politicians around the world can aspire to stoop…

If I’ve gotten either my facts or my opinions wrong on any of the Mongolian Protest posts, please email me or post a comment!

If the UB Post and Mongol Messenger are any indication (which they probably aren’t), there has not been a lot of political dialog in the newspapers - the opinion pages are silent. Indeed, the only media controversy seems to be a heated Wikipedia battle. Perhaps media outlets are taking defamation laws seriously, but one would think that a healthy division between the news and op-ed pages could overcome this. Of course, media bias is a problem throughout the world, but in Mexico, for example, by purchasing three or four of the main newspapers (e.g. leftist Journada and rightist Crónica) you could triangulate with reasonable accuracy what actually took place. Given protestors’ misconceptions about the whole Ivanhoe process, though,it seems that there was a lot of misinformation out there - though I’m not sure who is responsible for this (Was the press release translated into Mongolian? Ivanhoe’s Mongolian page does not seem to have been updated Was it distributed to NGO leaders?) It would have been nice to hear more than one quote from Layton Croft, Ivanhoe’s Executive Vice President for Corporate Affairs.

On a larger level, these protests are illustrative of the huge disconnect between elites and non-elites in Mongolia. All three protest targets - the parliamentary musical chairs, the Ivanhoe negotiations and Altjin Group’s silence over the SAPU fire - took place in the upper echelons of government power, and ordinary Mongolians had no way to participate in the process or, thanks to poor media coverage, learn about it. These protests have taken the country to a new level of political polarization, putting political NGOs in the difficult position of having to straddle the divide between two vastly different perspectives on Mongolian politics, if not splitting them altogether into ones that work closely with the government but are seen as sell-outs (or, to use a more academic term, ‘captured’) by the population and those which work more closely with popular movements but exhibit great antipathy towards the government (I’m thinking of J. Batzandan’s Healthy Society Movement here). This is taking the country in the wrong direction, away from the consensus between the three main sectors (government, civil society and business) required to successfully accomplish the judicial and legislative reforms that the country so desperately needs.

On a totally unrelated note, if you download the Mongolian Sights Google Earth placemark collection, the Mongolian parliament building is represented by a restaurant symbol. Must be some sort of political commentary…

Protestors focus on three main things: (1) Ivanhoe, (2) government corruption and (3) reparations for victims of the 12/05 SAPU trade center fire. However, they seem to all be combined into one agglomeration in Sukhbaatar Square, which proably makes it difficult for particular groups to get their message out - it looks like a disorganized mob of angry people.

The Ivanhoe case seems to be a combination of genuine nationalism and manufactured outrage on the part of the protest organizers, as the press release by Ivanhoe does a pretty good job refuting the protestors’ claims. It’s also interesting that all of the protests are at Sukhbaatar Square and not at the prominent Ivanhoe building 1/2-mile or so away (so I’ve read, at least). Also, the protestors might not realize that their presence will likely only make the negotiations worse and potentially ruin the deal. Misinformed protest is never a good way to make social progress.

Second, there’s the issue of protestors demanding government resignation. This seems to be the most irrational of the movements - do they really think that the well-entrenched politicians will listen to them? There is the ubiquitous threat of a ‘color revolution’-style ousting, but that would probably be the worst possible scenario, as it would throw the country into total chaos.

Finally, there’s the victims of the SAPU fire, who probably feel cheated by both the company and the government. Mongolia’s shaky legal territory and preponderance of corruption don’t help matters, and I’m sure there is not a small amount of class tension in the mix (i.e. wealthy businessmen and politicians conspiring to cheat poor merchants), which would not be surprising if it were true. Fortunately, it seems as if the issue is resolved.

I know I should be working on my thesis, but I need a quick diversion. (I hope none of my readers are looking at this, wondering where my priorities are!)

I’ll get to Kyrgyzstan in another post, but right now I want to focus for a bit on Mongolia. Rather than doing a postmortem on an event, I thought I’d try and capture (as best I can from Massachusetts) what’s going on right now in Mongolia.

For convenience, I’ll split this into three posts - a recap/summary, some second-hand observations and then some more academic commentary.

That said, let’s start in media res with a disturbing occurrence reported on at Neweurasia: “Altandush,” a young protestor, lights himself on fire. What prompted this extreme action? While, as a commentor mentioned, self-immolation is not unheard of, though it is in any circumstance extreme.

Here’s a brief chronology, compiled from news sources:

April 5: Resolute Reform and Just Society protestors, along with SAPU victims, attempt to enter the government palace but are repelled by police.

April 6: Protest challenges government’s signing of a pact with Ivanhoe Mines, demands mass resignations.

April 7: 2000+ protest calling for government-wide resignation.

April 8: Former tenants of the SAPU trade center, which burned down in December 2005 challenge the government to force the trade center’s owners to compensate the victims for their losses.

April 9: Protests continue, though, as Luke pointed out, Ivanhoe followed the letter of the law perfectly.

April 10: Students accept Tg1000-5000 from the MPRP.

April 10: Protestors block ambulance, patient inside dies.

April 12: Protests turn ugly as fights break out

April 13: S. Ganbaatar, of Resolute Reform, declares that the government must act by April 18.

April 15-ish: Ivanhoe makes a whole lot of concessions, but protests continue to escalate.

April 18: Unions and big business band together to demand fiscal reform.

April 18: 3000 protest in Sukhbaatar Square. No police intervention necessary.

April 18: Protestors announce a hunger strike.The head of Altjin says that she will be able to pay some, but not all, of what the protestors demand. 11 businessmen are compensated 30% of their losses.

April 20: SAPU victims continue hunger strike as MPs meet with them and the Altjin company.

April 21: The MPRP releases a statement saying that they’re going to cooperate more with NGOs/civil society.

It seems to have calmed down a bit in the last day or so, judging by the fall-off in news. Thanks to Luke Distelhorst (another Washingtonian! And Nathan makes three) for ongoing coverage - keep up the great work!

Huge hat tip to the Daily Show for its coverage of the 2006 Olympic Opening Ceremonies (clip). One of the oddities that Jon Stewart mentioned was the questionable selection of music (here’s the most complete list I could find). Notably among Central Asia, Mongolia got “Video Killed the Radio Star” and Uzbekistan paraded in to “Disco Inferno,” (by the Trammps, not 50 Cent) a faux pas eclipsed only by the use of “Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstand” to introduce Denmark. Not mentioned on the show, Azerbaijan got “I Will Survive” and Tajikistan Van Halen’s “Jump.”

Gleanings from the press:

• A follow-up on the previous note about Bush’s subtle signals: isn’t it a bad thing if you’re to the right of Genghis Khan?
• Also, GWB hit the airag, which is “sometimes likened to a mix of warm beer and buttermilk” (to put it generously). Will this affect Bush’s teetotaling image?

There’s a new op-ed from Elbegdorj in the Washington Post. A few reactions:
- “Welcome to freedom.”

- I’ll leave the discussion of whether bad governance = lack of freedom for another time.

-”Without a bullet being fired, without tanks in the streets, we laid the groundwork for building a new society”

- this is true and nontrivial, particularly vis-a-vis the Tajik Civil War and, more recently Andijan. Mongolian politics have been almost entirely devoid of the polarized/polemical rhetoric that marks the political sphere in other developing countries. Or, more precisely, there is a great deal of hostile talk between the parties, but nothing truly bad has come of it.

-”Our people are working hard to consolidate our freedom.”

- Who are these people? How many work outside of Sukhbaatar Square?

-”Without question among the greatest challenges facing our democratic institutions are poverty and corruption. Parliamentarians in both parties of our ruling Grand Coalition are working to provide the legal framework and resources to ensure that civil servants remain exactly that — servants of the people.”

- OK, who will take the first step beyond corruption? Who will risk their career to break the cycle of graft?

-”It is now not uncommon to see a satellite dish outside a herdsman’s ger — our traditional dwelling.”

- I did find this (and solar panels) a bit disorienting and surreal.

-”Further strengthening our development efforts is the inclusion of Mongolia in the Millennium Challenge program. When we sign our compact to begin project implementation, it will add a new level of transparency, ’sunlight’ and public participation to this critical poverty alleviation program by supporting economic growth.”

- An interesting construction that could be illustrative: Elbegdorj expects the MCC and/or the compact to add transparency rather than pledging to do it himself in anticipation of the MCC.

-”The mechanics of putting together our Millennium program have involved public input and solicitation of proposals from the people.” - Sort of. It was not exactly “grass-roots governance at its best”

- there was quite a bit of elite bargaining and referendum politics in order to achieve consensus in the process of developing the proposal.

- “perhaps there are already lessons for others in what we have accomplished.”

- I’m not so sure. Certainly the structures of Mongolian democracy are in place, but given the political stagnation of the ‘Grand Coalition’

With this I’m (hopefully) going to begin a semi-regular (or, rather, more frequent) series of wiritings tentatively titled “Alan Responds” (yes, I realize the title is unoriginal - let me know if you have a better idea). I’m now in the literature review part of my work, and I’m wrestling with how the major theories of democratic transition (Huntington, Lipset, Putnam, etc.) may or may not apply to Central Asia. I’ll be posting quotes from the authors and my response to them. Hopefully, there will be some dialog, as I’ll probably have misinterpreted the quote or taken it out of its proper context. Maybe there may even be a flame war or two. It should be fun!

A quick media review:
•In the style of COHA’s Welcome to Washington, Mr. President articles, we have Welcome to Ulaanbaatar, Mr. Bush, which fights stereotypes that I doubt Americans held about Mongolia.
•An interesting quote about the blame game, a common feature in donor politics:

“Every side is looking for a scapegoat instead of answering the question: What went wrong?'’ Enkhtuya Oidov, the general-secretary for Mongolia’s National Council for the MCC, said in an e-mail response to questions. “Rightly or wrongly Mongolians blame both — not only corrupt politicians but also donors who were so ignorant about where the money goes.'’(Source)

•Bush’s speech: an odd choice of a metaphor for the Mongolian-US partnership?

“There is a legend of a Mongolian woman who gave each of her five sons an arrow. She told each to break the arrow in his hand — which they did. She then tied five arrows together, and told each to try and break the bundle. None could do it. And she told them: Brothers who stand alone, like single arrow shafts, can be broken by anyone - but brothers who stand together, like a bundle of arrows, cannot be broken.” Hmmm….

Clearly, an important cause of the visit was Mongolia’s committment of troops in Iraq. What will be the effect of this trip? It will likely increase the legitimacy of the government. However, this would only help current politicians, who will be able to duck issues of corruption by clinging to the memory of the event. Symbolically, it represents an affirmation of the direction charted by the Mongolian government - one which, while clearly not bad, given the regional context, is far from ideal. Great opacity and bureaucracy combine to deny ordinary people access to the political process, and even NGOs, staffed by smart, engaged citizens, find it extremely difficult to make progress. Media is still very problematic. Hopefully, the ultimate message from the visit will be that Mongolia still has promise, but needs to accelerate the pace of political reform in order to qualify for MCC money - clearly the biggest carrot in the US’s toolkit.

I had set up a new blog, thinking that BlogSome was gone for good. However, I only got around to one post, which is reprinted below:

Having left the region of Nukehavistan (another new ’stan after Ethniklashistan!), it is good to be in Mongolia, where although there is a great deal of self-censorship people can criticize the government without the official threat of any prosecution/persecution. The context for development plays a huge role in determining the activities, their course (working with govterment, civil society and/or implementing the projects independently) and their level of success. Sometimes, environmental factors can be overcome, but it seems to require a magical combination of pre-project insight, strong leadership, and the will of the local partners (public, NGO, government) to make it succeed. This is a rare combination, but there are many additional factors that can influence this positively or negatively (way money is disbursed, focus on anticorruption or sustainability). Is there a single formula? Probably not, but there seems to be better strategies than others. More to come soon…