An American drone strike that killed leader of the Afghan Taliban Mullah Akhtar Mohammed Mansour may seem like a fillip for the United States’ ally, the embattled government of Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani. But as Vanda Felbab-Brown writes in a new op-ed for The New York Times, it is unlikely to improve Kabul’s immediate national security problems—and may create more difficulties than it solves.

The White House has argued that because Mansour became opposed to peace talks with the Afghan government, removing him became necessary to facilitate new talks. Yet, as Vanda writes in the op-ed, “the notion that the United States can drone-strike its way through the leadership of the Afghan Taliban until it finds an acceptable interlocutor seems optimistic, at best.”

[T]he notion that the United States can drone-strike its way through the leadership of the Afghan Taliban until it finds an acceptable interlocutor seems optimistic, at best.

Mullah Mansour's death does not inevitably translate into substantial weakening of the Taliban's operational capacity or a reprieve from what is shaping up to be a bloody summer in Afghanistan. Any fragmentation of the Taliban to come does not ipso facto imply stronger Afghan security forces or a reduction of violent conflict. Even if Mansour's demise eventually turns out to be an inflection point in the conflict and the Taliban does seriously fragment, such an outcome may only add complexity to the conflict. A lot of other factors, including crucially Afghan politics, influence the capacity of the Afghan security forces and their battlefield performance.

Nor will Mansour’s death motivate the Taliban to start negotiating. That did not happen when it was revealed last July’s the group’s previous leader and founder, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had died in 2013. To the contrary, the Taliban’s subsequent military push has been its strongest in a decade—with its most violent faction, the Haqqani network, striking the heart of Kabul. Mansour had empowered the violent Haqqanis following Omar’s death as a means to reconsolidate the Taliban, and their continued presence portends future violence. Mansour's successor, Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban’s former minister of justice who loved to issue execution orders, is unlikely to be in a position to negotiate (if he even wants to) for a considerable time as he seeks to gain control and create legitimacy within the movement.

The United States has sent a strong signal to Pakistan, which continues to deny the presence of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network within its borders. Motivated by a fear of provoking the groups against itself, Pakistan continues to show no willingness to take them on, despite the conditions on U.S. aid.

Disrupting the group’s leadership by drone-strike decapitation is tempting militarily. But it can be too blunt an instrument, since negotiations and reconciliation ultimately depend on political processes. In decapitation targeting, the U.S. leadership must think critically about whether the likely successor will be better or worse for the counterinsurgency endgame.

Event Information

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made India’s external relations a key focus of his policy agenda over the past year and a half. The recently released book, "The Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy" (Oxford Press, 2015), is well-timed. Edited by David M. Malone, C. Raja Mohan, and Srinath Raghavan, the "Handbook" includes essays which focus on the evolution of Indian foreign policy, its institutions and actors, India’s relations with its neighbors, and its partnerships with major world powers.

On November 13, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings hosted a panel discussion featuring some of the contributing authors to the "Handbook." The panelists discussed the current state of Indian foreign policy, its past, and its future, as well as the tools available to India’s foreign policy practitioners today and the constraints they might face.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #IndianForeignPolicy

Audio

• Indian foreign policy: Ideas, institutions, and practice

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20151113_indian_foreign_policy_transcript

When Iran and the P5+1 signed a deal over Tehran’s nuclear program last July, members of Congress, Middle East analysts, and Arab Gulf governments all warned that the agreement would prompt Iran’s rivals in the region to race for the bomb.

In a report that Bob Einhorn and I released this week, we assessed this risk of a so-called proliferation cascade. We look at four states in particular—Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Turkey—and Bob briefly explores each case in another blog post out today. In the paper, we argue that although the likelihood of a proliferation cascade in the Middle East is fairly low, and certainly lower than a number of critics of the Iran deal would have you believe, it is not zero. Given that, here are eight steps that leaders in Washington should take to head off that possibility:

1. Ensure that the JCPOA is rigorously monitored, strictly enforced, and faithfully implemented;
2. Strengthen U.S. intelligence collection on Iranian proliferation-related activities and intelligence-sharing on those activities with key partners;
3. Deter a future Iranian decision to produce nuclear weapons;
4. Seek to incorporate key monitoring and verification provisions of the JCPOA into routine IAEA safeguards as applied elsewhere in the Middle East and in the global nonproliferation regime;
5. Pursue U.S. civil nuclear cooperation with Middle East governments on terms that are realistic and serve U.S. nonproliferation interests;
6. Promote regional arrangements that restrain fuel cycle developments and build confidence in the peaceful use of regional nuclear programs;
7. Strengthen security assurances to U.S. partners in the Middle East; and
8. Promote a stable regional security environment.

Taken together, these steps deal with three core challenges the United States faces in shoring up the nonproliferation regime in the region.

The first is that the central test of nonproliferation in the Middle East will come from how the JCPOA is believed to be meeting its core objective of preventing Iranian nuclear weapons development and Iranian establishment of regional hegemony. It cannot be stressed enough that the decision to pursue nuclear weapons by any state, including those in the region, starts with a sense of vulnerability to core security threats and an inability to address those threats through any other means. The history of nuclear proliferation is one of tit-for-tat armament in the face of overriding security imperatives. Both finished and aborted nuclear programs bear the hallmarks of a security dilemma impelling states to make the political, economic, and security investments into nuclear weapons.

This is no less true for countries across the region than for Iran. To the extent that the overall security environment can be stabilized, there will be less impetus for any Middle Eastern state to develop nuclear weapons. The United States should focus on:

• Fully implementing and enforcing all sides of the JCPOA (nuclear restrictions, transparency, and sanctions relief);
• Creating a strong sense of deterrence toward Iran, manifest most clearly in the passage of a standing Authorization to Use Military Force if Iran is determined to be breaking out toward acquisition of a nuclear weapon;
• Providing security assurances and backing them up with the mechanisms to make them actionable like joint exercises, logistical planning, and cooperation with a range of regional and extra-regional actors; and,
• Working to promote a more stable regional environment by seeking the resolution of simmering conflicts.

But, these latter two factors also point to another resonant theme in our research: the need for the United States to be a player. After decades of involvement in the region, the United States has yet to settle upon the right balance between involvement and remove. Yet, establishing this equilibrium is essential. States in the region need predictability in their affairs with the United States, including knowing the degree to which our assurances will stand the test of time.

States in the region need predictability in their affairs with the United States, including knowing the degree to which our assurances will stand the test of time.

In part for this reason, the United States should not only pursue deeper security relationships, but also civil nuclear cooperation with interested states throughout the region. Such a relationship both ensures a closer link between the United States and its partners and discourages the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology by disincentivizing countries from “going it alone.” In the Middle East, the United States would need to find a formulation that offers some flexibility (such as by building in language that would permit the United States to terminate any nuclear cooperation arrangements in the face of sensitive fuel cycle development by the other side).

The United States should also share intelligence more closely with its partners in the region. This is helpful in the short term, of course, but also helps the United States understand the mindset of and intelligence picture of its regional partners in a broader sense. It also helps leaders in Washington address concerns brought about by unfounded rumors or speculation as to Iran’s intentions or capabilities.

Changing how we do business

Even more important than how the JCPOA was negotiated will be how we transition from its restrictions and transparency mechanisms into a new world in 15 to 20 years. 

The United States seek to incorporate elements of the JCPOA into normal international monitoring practices and should negotiate new arrangements to help govern the future development of nuclear technology in the region. 

To achieve the former, the IAEA will need to make some changes to how it does business. For example, the IAEA determines how best to implement its monitoring mission, contingent on acceptance by the country being inspected. The United States and its partners should work with the IAEA (and other countries with significant nuclear activities) to make some parts of the JCPOA standard operating practice, such as online monitoring of enrichment levels. Other elements of the JCPOA may require agreements at the IAEA and beyond for how nuclear-related activities, including those that could have value for nuclear weaponization, are handled. It might be hard to get agreement, not least because there is clear language in the JCPOA that states that it will not be seen as a precedent for future nuclear nonproliferation efforts. However, it should still be the ambition of the United States to make such steps part of the norm. 

A far more difficult lift would be organizing a regional approach to the nuclear fuel cycle. This is not the same as creating a multilateral fuel cycle, though some elements that approach would be helpful. Rather, the United States should find ways to craft regional agreements or, failing that, moratoria on aspects of the fuel cycle that others in the region would find threatening. It would be easier to negotiate constraints some aspects than others. For example, spent fuel reprocessing is rare in the Middle East, with only Israel having been known to do it to a significant degree. It may therefore be an attractive first place to begin. Enrichment would be altogether more difficult, but it may be possible to convince states in the region to forego the expansion of their enrichment programs beyond their status quo. For Iran, it would continue to possess uranium enrichment but with constraints that limit the utility of this program for weapons production; its incentive would be to avoid creating the rationale for regional competition. For other countries in the region, it would involve holding off on enrichment, but also on the financial and political investment enrichment would involve—as well refraining from creating a security dilemma for Iran that could produce miscalculation in the future.

While some of these recommendations are more challenging (and may prove impossible), others are potentially easier. By taking a multifaceted approach, the United States increases the chances that no further weapons of mass destruction proliferate in the Middle East down the road. 

Editors’ Note: Richard Nephew and Bob Einhorn spoke about their new report at a recent Brookings event. You can see the video from the event here.

Event Information

On July 30-31, 2004, more than 40 preeminent international leaders from the public, private, and non-profit sectors came together at the Aspen Institute to discuss "America's Role in the Fight Against Global Poverty" and to set out a forward-looking strategy for the United States.

Co-hosted by Richard C. Blum of Blum Capital Partners LP, the Brookings Institution's Poverty and Global Economy Initiative, the Aspen Institute, and Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, the group's aim was to explore the dilemma of global poverty from different perspectives, to disaggregate the seemingly intractable problem into more manageable challenges, and to identify key elements of an effective U.S. policy agenda.

With roundtable participants hailing from around the world and representing diverse experiences and approaches, the dialogue was as multifaceted as the challenge of poverty itself. Rather than simply summarize conference proceedings, this essay attempts to weave together the thoughtful exchanges, impassioned calls to action, fresh insights, and innovative ideas that characterized the discussion, and to set the stage for ongoing collaboration in the struggle for human dignity.

Helping to define the issues, share and encourage what works, and build the intellectual framework for such an enterprise will be the guiding mission of the Richard C. Blum Roundtable in the years ahead.


View the full report »
View the conference agenda »
View the participant list »

Event Information

From August 3 to 6, 2005, fifty preeminent international leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors came together at the Aspen Institute for a roundtable, "The Private Sector in the Fight against Global Poverty."

The roundtable was hosted by Richard C. Blum of Blum Capital Partners and Strobe Talbott and Lael Brainard of the Brookings Institution, with the active support of honorary cochairs Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute and Mary Robinson of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative. By highlighting the power of the market to help achieve social and economic progress in the world's poorest nations, the roundtable's organizers hoped to galvanize the private, public, and nonprofit sectors to move beyond argument and analysis to action. Put simply, as Brookings president Strobe Talbott explained, the roundtable's work was "brainstorming with a purpose."

With experts hailing from around the world and representing diverse sectors and approaches, the dialogue was as multilayered as the challenge of poverty itself. Rather than summarize the conference proceedings, this essay weaves together the thoughtful observations, fresh insights, and innovative ideas that characterized the discussion. A companion volume, Transforming the Development Landscape: The Role of the Private Sector, contains papers by conference participants, providing in-depth analysis of each conference topic.

View the 2005 report » (PDF)
View the conference agenda »
View the list participants »

Policy Brief #172

Why Institutions Matter

Institutional reform

Setting the federal budget on a sustainable course is an enormous challenge. If we do nothing, we will add an average of nearly $1 trillion to the national debt every year between now and 2020, raising the debt/ GDP ratio to a level not seen since the early 1950s and sending the annual cost of servicing the debt sky-high. Restoring pay-as-you-go budgeting and putting some teeth in it are a start, but not nearly enough. We need radical changes in rules and procedures.

One option, recently proposed by a bipartisan group that includes three former directors of the Congressional Budget Office, would change the giant entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The new rules would require a review every five years to determine whether projected revenues and outlays are in balance. If not, Congress would be required to restore balance through dedicated revenue increases, benefits cuts or a combination. After a financial crisis in the early 1990s, Sweden introduced a variant of this plan, which has worked reasonably well.A number of Brookings scholars—including Henry Aaron, Gary Burtless, William Gale, Alice Rivlin and Isabel Sawhill—have suggested a Value Added Tax (VAT) as part of a program of fiscal and tax reform. Burtless offers an intriguing proposal that would link a VAT to health care finance. Revenue from the VAT would be dedicated to—and would cover—the federal share of health care programs. If the federal cost rises faster than proceeds from the VAT, Congress would have to either raise the VAT rate or cut back programs to fit the flow of funds. The system would become much more transparent and accountable: because the VAT rate would appear on every purchase, citizens could see for themselves the cost of federal support for health care, and they could tell their representatives what balance they prefer between increased rates and reduced health care funding.

Another option draws on the experience of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, which enables the military to surmount NIMBY politics and shut down unneeded bases. The basic idea is straightforward: once the independent commission settles on a list of proposed closures, Congress has the option of voting it up or down without amendment. A similar idea undergirds the president’s “fast-track” authority to negotiate proposed trade treaties, which Congress can reject but cannot modify.

Suitably adapted, this concept could help break longstanding fiscal logjams. Here is one way it might work. Independent commissions with members from both political parties could submit proposals in designated areas of fiscal policy. To increase bipartisan appeal, each proposal would require a super-majority of the commission. In the House and Senate, both the majority and the minority would have the opportunity to offer only a single amendment. This strategy of “empowered commissions” changes the incentive structure in Congress, reducing negative logrolling to undermine the prospects of proposals that would otherwise gain majority support.

Empowered commissions represent a broader strategy—using institutional design to insulate certain activities from regular and direct political pressure. For example, the Constitution mandates that federal judges, once confirmed, hold office during “good behavior” and receive salaries that Congress may not reduce during their term of service. (By contrast, many states subject judges to regular election and possible recall.) In another striking example, members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed to 14-year non-renewable terms, limiting the ability of the executive branch to change its membership rapidly and removing governors’ incentives to trim their policy sails in hopes of reappointment. Additionally, action by neither the president nor any other entity in the executive branch is required to implement the Fed’s decisions, and Fed chairmen have been known to take steps that vex the Oval Office.

This strategy is controversial. Officials with populist leanings often argue that fundamental decisions affecting the economy should be made through transparent democratic processes. The counterargument: experience dating back to the founding of the republic suggests that when interest rates and the money supply are set at the whim of transient majorities, economic growth and stability are at risk.

Boosting savings

An adequate supply of capital is a precondition of long-term economic growth, and household saving is an important source of capital. During the 1960s, U.S. households saved 12 percent of their income; as recently as the 1980s, that figure stood at 8 percent. By 2005–2006, the savings rate dipped into negative territory, and today it stands at a meager 3 percent. In recent years, funds from abroad—principally Asia— filled the capital gap. But evidence is accumulating that foreign governments have reached the limit of their appetite (or tolerance) for U.S. debt. To avert a capital shortage and soaring interest rates, which would choke off growth, we must boost private savings as we reduce public deficits.

For a long time, tax incentives for saving have been the tool of choice. But as evidence mounts that these incentives are less effective than hoped, policy experts are turning to alternatives. One rests on a key finding of behavioral economics: default settings have a large impact on individual conduct and collective outcomes. If you require people to opt in to enter a program, such as 401(k) retirement plans, even a modest inconvenience will deter many of them from participating. But if you reverse the procedure— automatically enrolling them unless they affirmatively opt out—you can boost participation.

To achieve an adequate rate of private saving, we may need to go even further. One option is a mandatory retirement savings program to supplement Social Security. Workers would be required to set aside a fixed percentage of earnings and invest them in generic funds—equities, public debt, private debt, real estate, commodities and cash. For those who fail to designate a percentage allocation for each fund, a default program would take effect. (Participants always would have the option of regaining control.) As workers near retirement age, their holdings would be automatically rebalanced in a more conservative direction. One version of this proposal calls for “progressive matching,” in which low-earning individuals receive a subsidy equal to half their payroll contributions; those making more would get a smaller match along a sliding scale, and those at the top would receive no match at all.

This strategy requires careful institutional and programmatic design. To ensure maximum benefits to wage earners, the private sector would be allowed to offer only funds with very low costs and fees. To ensure that the program actually boosts net savings, individuals would be prohibited from withdrawing funds from their accounts prior to retirement; except in emergencies, they would not be allowed to borrow against their accounts; and they would be prohibited from using them as collateral. And a clear line would be drawn to prevent government interference in the private sector: while government-administered automatic default investments would be permitted, government officials could not direct the flow of capital to specific firms.

Improving public investment

The investment deficit has a public face as well. Since the early 19th century, government has financed and helped build major infrastructure projects—roads, bridges, ports and canals, among others, have spurred economic growth and opened new domestic and international markets. Recently, however, public infrastructure investment has fallen well short of national needs, and often has been poorly targeted. Americans travelling and working abroad are noticing that U.S. infrastructure is falling behind not only advanced countries’ but rapidly developing countries’ as well. A study by Emilia Istrate and Robert Puentes of Brookings’s Metropolitan Policy Program, presented in a December 2009 report entitled “Investing for Success,” documents three key shortcomings of federal infrastructure investment: it lacks long-term planning, fails to provide adequately for maintenance costs, and suffers from a flawed project selection process as benefits are not weighed rigorously against costs.

Istrate and Puentes explore several strategies for correcting these deficiencies. One of the most promising is a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB), to require benefit-cost analyses of proposed projects, break down financial barriers between related types of investment (facilitating inter-modal transportation, for example), and improve coordination across jurisdictional lines. The NIB could be funded through a modest initial infusion of federal capital designed to attract private capital. Projects receiving loans from the NIB would have to provide for depreciation and document the sources of funds to repay the face amount of each loan, plus interest. In short, the NIB would be more than a conduit for the flow of federal funds; it would function as a real bank, imposing market discipline on projects and making infrastructure investments attractive to private capital, partly by providing flexible subordinated debt.

Istrate and Puentes identify diverse problems that designers of an NIB would confront. Insulating the selection process from political interference would pose serious difficulties, as would providing federal seed capital without increasing the federal deficit and debt. Requiring the repayment of loans could skew project awards away from projects that cannot easily charge user fees—wastewater and environmental infrastructure projects, for example. Despite these challenges, a properly designed bank could increase the quantity of infrastructure investment while improving its effectiveness, reducing bottlenecks and promoting economic efficiency. The potential benefits for long-term growth would be considerable.

Creating the Political Conditions for Reform

The rise of political polarization in recent decades has made effective action much more difficult for the U.S. government. Polarization has impeded efforts to enact even the progrowth reforms sketched in this paper. A multiyear collaboration between the Brookings and Hoover Institutions—resulting in a two-volume report, Red and Blue Nation?, with Volume One published in 2006 and Volume Two in 2008— has mapped the scope of the phenomenon. This effort has shown that, while political elites are more sharply divided than citizens in general, citizens are more likely now to place themselves at the ends of the ideological spectrum than they were as recently as the 1980s. With a smaller political center to work with, even leaders committed to bipartisan compromise have been stymied. The fate of President Bush’s 2005 Social Security proposal illustrates the difficulty of addressing tough issues in these circumstances.

It might seem that the only cure for polarization is a shift of public sentiment back toward moderation. The Brookings-Hoover project found, however, that changes in institutional design could reduce polarization and might, over time, lower the partisan temperature. Here are two ideas, culled from a much longer list.

Congressional redistricting

While population flows account for much of the growth in safe seats dominated by strong partisans, recent studies indicate that gerrymanders account for 10 to 36 percent of the reduction in competitive congressional districts since 1982. This is not a trivial effect.

Few Western democracies draw up their parliamentary districts in so patently politicized a fashion as do U.S. state legislatures. Parliamentary electoral commissions, operating independently and charged with making reasonably objective determinations, are the preferred model abroad.

Given the Supreme Court’s reluctance to enter the thicket of redistricting controversies, any changes will be up to state governments. In recent years, voter initiatives and referenda in four states—Washington, Idaho, Alaska and Arizona—have established nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commissions. These commissions struggle with a complicated riddle: how to enhance competitiveness while respecting other parameters, such as geographic compactness, jurisdictional boundaries, and the desire to consolidate “communities of interest.” Iowa’s approach, where a nonpartisan legislative staff has the last word, is often cited as a model but may be hard to export to states with more demographic diversity and complex political cultures. Arizona has managed to fashion some workable, empirically based standards that are yielding more heterogeneous districts and more competitive elections.

Incentives to participate

Another depolarizing reform would promote the participation of less ideologically committed voters in the electoral process. Some observers do not view the asymmetric power of passionate partisans in U.S. elections as a cause for concern: Why shouldn’t political decisions be made by the citizens who care most about them? Aren’t those who care also better informed? And isn’t their intensive involvement an indication that the outcome of the election affects their interests more than it affects the interests of the non-voters? While this argument has surface plausibility, it is not compelling. Although passionate partisanship infuses the system with energy, it erects road-blocks to problem-solving. Many committed partisans prefer gridlock to compromise, and gridlock is no formula for effective governance.

To broaden the political participation of less partisan citizens, who tend to be more weakly connected to the political system, several major democracies have made voting mandatory. Australia, for one, has compulsory voting; it sets small fines for non-voting that escalate for recidivism, with remarkable results. The turnout rate in Australia tops 95 percent, and citizens regard voting as a civic obligation. Near-universal voting raises the possibility that a bulge of casual voters, with little understanding of the issues and candidates, can muddy the waters by voting on non-substantive criteria, such as the order in which candidates’ names appear on the ballot. The inevitable presence of some such “donkey voters,” as they are called in Australia, does not appear to have badly marred the democratic process in that country.

Indeed, the civic benefits of higher turnouts appear to outweigh the “donkey” effect. Candidates for the Australian Parliament have gained an added incentive to appeal broadly beyond their partisan bases. One wonders whether members of Congress here in the United States, if subjected to wider suffrage, might also spend less time transfixed by symbolic issues that are primarily objects of partisan fascination, and more time coming to terms with the nation’s larger needs. At least campaigns continually tossing red meat to the party faithful might become a little less pervasive.

The United States is not Australia, of course. Although both are federal systems, the U.S. Constitution confers on state governments much more extensive control over voting procedures. While it might not be flatly unconstitutional to mandate voting nationwide, it would surely chafe with American custom and provoke opposition in many states. Federalism American-style also has some unique advantages, including its tradition of using states as “laboratories of democracy” that test reform proposals before they are elevated to consideration at the national level. If a few states experiment with compulsory voting and demonstrate its democracy- enriching potential, they might, in this way, smooth the path to national consideration.  

Conclusion

In challenging times, political leaders undertake institutional reform, not because they want to, but because they must. Our own era—a period of profound economic crisis—is no exception. Even in circumstances of deep political polarization, both political parties have accepted the need to restructure our system of financial regulation.

As well, recognition is growing that we face three key challenges—a fiscal deficit, a savings deficit and an investment deficit—that have eluded control by existing institutions and, unless checked, will impede long-term economic growth. The question is whether we will be able to adopt the needed changes in an atmosphere of reflection and deliberation, or whether we will delay until a worse crisis compels us to act.

Downloads

• Download Policy Brief

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the face of unprecedented global challenges, effective global cooperation increasingly requires a partnership between state and non-state actors. Many international institutions now involve non-state actors in arenas that were once the exclusive province of states. The paper analyzes the evolution of civil society participation in the governance of international institutions and highlights the shift from a model based on consultation toward a model of multistakeholder governance. The paper argues that consultation is a less effective approach to involving civil society in achieving the mission of these institutions and suggests that more robust forms of multi-stakeholder participation by civil society can foster greater accountability and better deliberation. It analyzes competing claims about the desirability of including civil society in the governance of international institutions and suggests that an emerging constituency model can promote more effective multi-stakeholder governance. Constituency structures are already central features of several global health institutions and are now being contemplated by institutions in other sectors, including by the Education for All—Fast Track Initiative.

Multi-stakeholder approaches to governance are likely to become more widespread in the years to come in order to harness the contributions of a plethora of private actors engaged in responding to a wide range of global challenges. Even with enhanced cooperation between states, it is increasingly clear that non-state actors are essential to responding to key challenges across a wide range of sectors. Although it is possible to imagine expanded cooperation between state and non-state actors without opening up the governance structures of international institutions, it is less likely that these institutions will be successful in the longrun without a shift toward greater multi-stakeholder involvement in the institutions themselves.

Downloads

• Download Full Paper

Exactly one year after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s last multi-country tour of sub-Saharan Africa, he is preparing for another visit to the continent—to Kenya and Djibouti from May 3 to 5, 2015. In Kenya, Kerry and a U.S. delegation including Linda Thomas-Greenfield, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, will engage in talks with senior Kenyan officials on U.S.-Kenya security cooperation, which the U.S. formalized through its Security Governance Initiative (SGI) at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit last August. Over the past several years, the U.S. has increased its military assistance to Kenya and African Union (AU) troops to combat the Somali extremist group al-Shabab and has conducted targeted drone strikes against the group’s top leaders.  In the wake of the attack on Kenya’s Garissa University by al-Shabab, President Obama pledged U.S. support for Kenya, and Foreign Minister Amina Mohamed has stated that Kenya is currently seeking additional assistance from the U.S. to strengthen its military and intelligence capabilities.

Kerry will also meet with a wide array of leaders from Kenya’s private sector, civil society, humanitarian organizations, and political opposition regarding the two countries’ “common goals, including accelerating economic growth, strengthening democratic institutions, and improving regional security,” according to a U.S. State Department spokesperson. These meetings are expected to build the foundation for President Obama’s trip to Kenya for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in July of this year.

On Tuesday, May 5, Kerry will become the first sitting secretary of state to travel to Djibouti. There, he will meet with government officials regarding the evacuation of civilians from Yemen and also visit Camp Lemonnier, the U.S. military base from which it coordinates its counterterror operations in the Horn of Africa region.

This week saw the proliferation of anti-government street demonstrations as current President Pierre Nkurunziza declared his candidacy for a third term, after being in office for ten years.  The opposition has deemed this move as “unconstitutional” and in violation of the 2006 Arusha peace deal which ended the civil war. Since the announcement, hundreds of civilians took to the streets of Bujumbura, despite a strong military presence. At least six people have been killed in clashes between police forces and civilians. 

Since the protests erupted, leading human rights activist Pierre-Claver Mbonimpa has been arrested alongside more than 200 protesters. One of Burundi’s main independent radio stations was also suspended as they were covering the protests.  On Wednesday, the government blocked social media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook, declaring them important tools in implementing and organizing protests. Thursday, amid continuing political protests, Burundi closed its national university and students were sent home. 

Amid the recent protests, Burundi’s constitutional court will examine the president’s third term bid. Meanwhile, U.N. secretary general Ban Ki-moon has sent his special envoy for the Great Lakes Region to hold a dialogue with president Nkurunziza and other government authorities. Senior U.S. diplomat Tom Malinowski also arrived in Bujumbura on Thursday to help defuse the biggest crisis the country has seen in the last few years, expressing disappointment over Nkurunziza’s decision to run for a third term.

Since the early 2000s, China has become an increasingly significant source of financing for African infrastructure projects, as noted in a recent Brookings paper, “Financing African infrastructure: Can the world deliver?” This week, observers have seen an additional spike in African infrastructure investments from Chinese firms, as three major railway, real estate, and other infrastructure deals were struck on the continent, totaling nearly $7.5 billion in investments.

On Monday, April 27, the state-owned China Railway Construction Corp announced that it will construct a $3.5 billion railway line in Nigeria, as well as a $1.9 billion real estate project in Zimbabwe. Then on Wednesday, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (one of the country’s largest lenders) signed a $2 billion deal with the government of Equatorial Guinea in order to carry out a number of infrastructure projects throughout the country. These deals align with China’s “One Belt, One Road” strategy of building infrastructure in Africa and throughout the developing world in order to further integrate their economies, stimulate economic growth, and ultimately increase demand for Chinese exports. For more insight into China’s infrastructure lending in Africa and the implications of these investments for the region’s economies, please see the following piece by Africa Growth Initiative Nonresident Fellow Yun Sun: “Inserting Africa into China’s One Belt, One Road strategy: A new opportunity for jobs and infrastructure?”

Recently, Bolivian President Evo Morales declared himself a “slave of the people” and said he is backing the proposed constitutional reform that would enable him to seek re-election in 2019 if that’s what the citizens want. Last Saturday, September 26, the Legislative Assembly partially amended the Constitution (by a two-thirds majority), authorizing Morales to run for the presidency once again in 2019. February 21, 2016 is set as the date of the popular referendum to validate or reject the amendment.

This amendment allows presidential re-election for two consecutive terms, rather than just one re-election, as dictated by the previous constitutional provision. The change takes into account the current presidential term (2015-2020) and clarifies that Evo and his vice president are authorized to run only one more time, that is, to seek re-election only for the 2020 to 2025 period. The opposition immediately denounced the amendment as “tailoring the law to the needs of one person”.

It should be noted that Morales and García ran and won in the 2005, 2009, and 2014 elections. The current term is the second consecutive term under the new Bolivian Constitution (adopted in 2009) and the third since they were first elected, in 2005. If he wins the elections scheduled for 2019, Evo would become one of the leaders to hold power the longest in Bolivia and throughout Latin America.

Re-election fever

This constitutional amendment, recently adopted in Bolivia, is not an isolated event. Rather, it fits within a regional trend toward re-election that has been gaining ground in Latin America over the past 20 years.

While the region ushered in democracy in the late 1970s and many clearly opposing re-election, this situation changed dramatically a few years later. The first wave of reforms favorable to immediate or consecutive re-election came in the first half of the 1990s with the impetus of Alberto Fujimori in Peru (1993), Carlos Menem in Argentina (1994), and Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil (1997). From then on, several more presidents introduced reforms during their administrations to keep themselves in power. A second wave of reforms, led by Hugo Chávez, took place in the middle of the last decade, with a view to moving from immediate re-election to indefinite re-election. Chávez secured this objective via referendum in 2009.

Chávez’s example was reproduced by Daniel Ortega in 2014 in Nicaragua (the second country to allow indefinite re-election). Currently one more president, Rafael Correa (Ecuador), is promoting a reform along similar lines.

Recent reforms and trends

The years 2014 and 2015 have been full of news a about re-election. In the last 20 years the Dominican Republic has led in the number of re-election related reforms, with four from 1994 to 2015. The most recent, in July 2015, has re-established immediate re-election, enabling President Danilo Medina to run once again in May 2016 elections to aspire to a second consecutive term.

Two more countries have moved in what some might call extreme directions in 2014 and 2015. Nicaragua eliminated any impediment to re-election from the constitution in January of 2014, while Colombia moved in the opposite direction when they approved a reform prohibiting presidential re-election, in June 2015, a decade after re-election was first adopted.

On April 22, 2015, the Honduran Supreme Court declared the articles of the constitution that prohibited presidential re-election inapplicable. These articles also punished public officials and any other citizen who proposed or supported amending them, as these articles were considered not subject to reform. In 2009 the effort to call a National Constitutional Assembly after a non-binding consultation to amend the constitution and do away with this provision, led to the coup d’état that removed former President Zelaya from office.

In Brazil, the Chamber of Deputies cast an initial vote in 2015 in favor of eliminating re-elections, which is now being examined in the Senate. Most analysts consider it likely that the senate will adopt a similar position as the lower house, i.e. in favor of doing away with re-election.

Finally, one should note the cases of Ecuador and Bolivia, countries in which efforts are under way to amend the constitutions in relation to elections, in the terms analyzed above.

As a result of the reforms of the last few years, at this time 14 of the 18 countries in the region allow re-election, albeit with different specific rules. Venezuela (since 2009) and Nicaragua (since 2014) are the only countries so far that allow indefinite re-election. In five countries – Argentine, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic – consecutive re-election is allowed, but not indefinitely (only one re-election is permitted). Nonetheless, presidents who re-founded the institutional order through constitutional assemblies have been able to benefit from a third term, leaving out the first term on the argument that it pre-dated the constitutional reforms (Bolivia and Ecuador). To these five countries we should added the above-mentioned case of Honduras.

In six other countries one can return to the presidency after an interval of one or two presidential terms. These are Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay. As we have observed, only four countries have an absolute prohibition on any type of re-election, namely Mexico, Guatemala, Paraguay, and, since last July, Colombia.

My opinion

This re-election fever is bad news for a region like ours given the institutional weaknesses, the crisis of the political parties, the growing personalization of politics, and, in several countries, hyper-presidentialism.

Something is very wrong when a president of a democracy considers himself or herself as indispensable as to change the constitution in order to stay in power. As Pope Francis noted recently; “a good leader is one who is capable of bringing up other leaders. If a leader wants to lead alone, he is a tyrant. True leadership is fruitful.”

“The leaders of today will not be here tomorrow. If they do not plant the seed of leadership in others, they are worthless. They are dictators,” he concluded.

I agree with Pope Francis. The health of a democracy depends essentially on its ability to limit the power of those in government so they cannot reshape the law to fit their personal ambitions. In other words, democracy in Latin America does not need leaders who are slaves of the people, but who are slaves to the law and the institutions.

This piece was originally published by International IDEA.

An American drone strike that killed leader of the Afghan Taliban Mullah Akhtar Mohammed Mansour may seem like a fillip for the United States’ ally, the embattled government of Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani. But as Vanda Felbab-Brown writes in a new op-ed for The New York Times, it is unlikely to improve Kabul’s immediate national security problems—and may create more difficulties than it solves.

The White House has argued that because Mansour became opposed to peace talks with the Afghan government, removing him became necessary to facilitate new talks. Yet, as Vanda writes in the op-ed, “the notion that the United States can drone-strike its way through the leadership of the Afghan Taliban until it finds an acceptable interlocutor seems optimistic, at best.”

[T]he notion that the United States can drone-strike its way through the leadership of the Afghan Taliban until it finds an acceptable interlocutor seems optimistic, at best.

Mullah Mansour's death does not inevitably translate into substantial weakening of the Taliban's operational capacity or a reprieve from what is shaping up to be a bloody summer in Afghanistan. Any fragmentation of the Taliban to come does not ipso facto imply stronger Afghan security forces or a reduction of violent conflict. Even if Mansour's demise eventually turns out to be an inflection point in the conflict and the Taliban does seriously fragment, such an outcome may only add complexity to the conflict. A lot of other factors, including crucially Afghan politics, influence the capacity of the Afghan security forces and their battlefield performance.

Nor will Mansour’s death motivate the Taliban to start negotiating. That did not happen when it was revealed last July’s the group’s previous leader and founder, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had died in 2013. To the contrary, the Taliban’s subsequent military push has been its strongest in a decade—with its most violent faction, the Haqqani network, striking the heart of Kabul. Mansour had empowered the violent Haqqanis following Omar’s death as a means to reconsolidate the Taliban, and their continued presence portends future violence. Mansour's successor, Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban’s former minister of justice who loved to issue execution orders, is unlikely to be in a position to negotiate (if he even wants to) for a considerable time as he seeks to gain control and create legitimacy within the movement.

The United States has sent a strong signal to Pakistan, which continues to deny the presence of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network within its borders. Motivated by a fear of provoking the groups against itself, Pakistan continues to show no willingness to take them on, despite the conditions on U.S. aid.

Disrupting the group’s leadership by drone-strike decapitation is tempting militarily. But it can be too blunt an instrument, since negotiations and reconciliation ultimately depend on political processes. In decapitation targeting, the U.S. leadership must think critically about whether the likely successor will be better or worse for the counterinsurgency endgame.