This book is cleverly written. If you have read Freakonomics, this book follows similar method but applied it onto politics. It gave reader practical understanding using simple argument which make sense and does not elaborate much on theory. It debunked the conventional wisdom and presents the problem in a much simpler way. I think this is the quality of good books, they talk about complex topic in a simple way which make sense.

In the introduction, Mesquita and Smith introduced a simple way of thinking, politics is about getting into power and staying in power. To rule one need a loyal circle, nobody rule alone. They argue that we should stop thinking about politics from the view of national interest, state does not have any interest, people does. Every action of a leader will be best understand as a way he want to maintain his power.

As what  Machiavelli have thought us, this book share similar value. Mainly, we should see politics on how it works not what we think how it should work. We think that politic should work to serve the people, but we have to accept like it or not, it will not work like what we want.

To break the idea into simpler form which readers can relate, they break supporter to any leader into 3 main categories, which were the interchangeable, influential, and essentials. The idea which is very interesting that I would like you to read for yourself to explore more. The best part of the book, as I dive more into it, was a vast examples and case studies been put forward. They studied Fidel Castro and Che Guevara in Cuban power struggle, the fight between Gorbachev and Yeltsin in Russia, and even the struggle of Damasus to become the Pope. It does not stop there, business structure also been scrutinized and analyzed closely. They also explain the differences on the challenges to seize power and the challenges to remain in power.

Observing democracy, they analyzed why in multi-party system, there are many parties but at the end every time, only one party won. This is not a coincidence, smaller fringe parties are allowed not because of freedom, but because they break the oppositions vote and serve the interest of the dominant party.

We often wonder why nation with abundance natural resources ended up being poor and undeveloped. This is called resources curse. Leader needs money to operate their administration. This was usually achieved by taxation, but in order to tax, the population need to work and some liberal policy need to be put in place. This policy might pose a strategic threat to a leader politically. When natural resources is abundance, leader can generate revenue and depend less on taxation. Extracting resources from the earth is fairly straight forward, it can be done using a small labor and exclude the general population, leaving them to remain poor.

The book also explain the logic why democratic government did not promote democratization of other states. This is because democratic state can easily buy foreign policy from autocratic dictatorship, rather than from democracies. They documented how US facilitated the overthrowing of leaders elected democratically, including Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic, Salvador Allende in Chile, and Mosaddeq in Iran. This logic also explain why Saudi Arabia and many middle east countries which are US ally, never democratize. They also explain how foreign aid was used to salvaged despotic regime while maintaining the people in misery.

The book offer different perspective to understand politics, instead of using moral, ideology, and national interest, the book takes us on different road. To look into politic in the sense of power struggle, by which leader behave to make sure that they have the power and stay in power. The idea is very much like what Machiavelli proposed, looking at politics simply as the game of political survival. Some people might argue that its an inhumane way on looking into politics. But in the end, politics played by its rule, not by what we want it to be, and if we fail to accept it, we will most probably fail.

This article is a review of a book title ‘The Dictator’s Handbook : Why Bad Behavior Almost Always Good Politics’ written by Bruce Bueno De Mesquita and Alastair Smith. Published by Public Affairs, 2011.

 

What is the similarity between a banana and a government?

It turns out that both of them exist as a reality. Banana is a physical reality. We can touch it, taste it, and eat it – and it’s also occupy physical space. Government in contrast exist, albeit fictionally. We know that government exist, we fear them we can read about them in the news. But government unlike banana is a fictional reality, government is a concept which was created and overtime accepted as a reality. If all people cease to believe they exist, it will cease from existence.

This is the sort of question Yuval Noah Harari explored in his famous book Sapiens: A brief history of humankind.

He explored why human species thrives while other species went extinct. In term of physical characteristic, other species were far more superior than us. Cheetah has a stronger leg muscle and run faster than us, gorilla have a stronger and bigger arm, fish can breathe inside waters. Yet, something is missing from them which left them inferior than us.

What missing according to Harari is the ability to trust and collaborate between each other. When we took our morning bus to office, we barely know the driver, yet we trust that they will drive us safely to our destination. When we eat at a cafe, we never knew the cook personally, but we trust that what they prepared for us is safe for consumption. Many of ideas put forward by Harari are simple yet profound. What he write will radically change what we thought about human species.

 

 

This article is a review of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Re-published by Penguin Classics in 2015

Many thought that Communism has failed as a political system, it is perceived as an evil ideology and always associated with dictatorial regime. When we speak of Communism, what come into our mind is the brutal regime under Joseph Stalin in Soviet Union, people also will associate Communism with Mao Zedong in China. People always overlooked that actually Communism, particularly Marx’s idea has a contribution, which is very essential.

The work and thinking of Marx has a profound contribution, namely ‘the capitalist system has problems’. The solution however, as suggested by Marx in his manifesto might seems less feasible. The abolition of family, religion and private property as a solution suggested by Marx have been tested and failed, but through his thinking capitalism has been reformed significantly. Capitalism as we know it today, have changed significantly, it is not the same capitalism which exist at the time of Marx and Engels. So the question we want to look at is, why there are still significant interest in his work today? As we seen, Soviet Union has collapsed while China has embraced capitalism in their business practice.

In the manifesto, Marx noted that the capitalism foster a culture that always seek to satisfy want, new want emerged causing destruction of old industries and the birth of new industries, and to sustain itself this trend need to be continuous. Many of the post-soviet generation feels that this was true. We saw today, advertised in front of our very eyes everyday. New shoe, new fashion, new car, as if new product equals to good products. Instead of using what we have that is still operating, we are urged to throw it away and buy new product instead. This culture of consumerism which was fostered by capitalism led to fast depletion of natural resources and destruction of the environment in industrial scale.

The crisis capitalism brought, as highlighted by Marx is over-supply and over-production. Most people will ask, whats the bad thing if we have more than enough to feed ourselves? The answer to that question is the distribution of wealth. On state level, we can see that many of the rich people live their life lavishly, they throw away foods which is still consumable. On the same time, we have the poor people, who barely have anything to eat for the entire week. This problem does not confine to specific state or nation only, globally we can see some nation are very rich, while others are very poor. The system does not distribute wealth sensibly.

Marx also highlighted on how the system enriching few people, while wages decline. “Extensive used of machinery and division of labor” destroyed what Marx identified as “charm for the workman”. In other words, they were forced to do things without much thinking, and the value of workmanship has been lost. In the old time, carpenter build a furniture, he can saw his labor transform raw material into finished products. He can have a sense of satisfaction seeing his workmanship. This is not the case today, where the division of labor has been applied on a global scale. Take computer. The chip might be manufactured in Israel, the screen might be outsourced to a company in Malaysia, the keyboard might been design in Germany and manufactured in Vietnam. All of these parts then shipped and assembled in China. Workers from each of the countries can’t see the finished product, they did not shared the feeling of satisfaction as their ancestors did.

The clash Marx noted, is always arises from ‘class antagonism’ where in many places workers club together to form union to demand for their right. Often the struggles broke into riots. Capitalism often concern with profit and capital gain from any mode of adventure and manufacture. If a job can be outsourced somewhere with less labor cost, this is good in capitalist point of view. It does not concern on the wellbeing of workers of impact to society.

These are the reasons why people still looking into Marx’s thinking today. While he might don’t have a feasible solution, Marx diagnosed the Capitalist system and show us the flaws. Through his writing we saw what was needed to be look into more detail. While he has open the way, it is up to us today to find the suitable remedy.

Book written by Jill Rigby, published by Howard Books, 2008.

Many people gave negative review about the book. Saying that there isn’t anything much in the book that they already know. I kinda agree, but I think its not that real bad, its still readable. The book argue that we does not need a children with high self-esteem, instead we need children with manners, humble and compassionate. Rigby argued that, this can be achieved using religion.

In the book, Rigby highlight parent who being a Deflector who asked children make decision which they are net yet capable doing. For example for kid in 3-years old, they should not asked to decide what they want to eat, instead parent have to decide for them. Then there are Depriver parent, who always help their children doing things. Rigby argue that if the children already capable of doing something, we should not do it for them instead. If we do, we deprive them necessary life skill which they should be learning. Children should learn life skills such as cleaning, cooking and money management.

To nurture necessary life skill, children should be given task and chores appropriate with their age. For example for 3 years old, they should learn how to put their dirty clothes in laundry basket and put their toys in the box. For 6 years old for example, they should be given task to wash fruits and vegetables. As they getting older, they should help buying groceries, cleaning the house, cook for the family.

Rigby also pointed out the need to develop tradition in the family to keep them intact and foster togetherness. Dinner for example, should be a compulsory family time, where all members of the family will sit together and all the electronics should be put away. Broken family bears children who would join illegal arm and drug gang. In this gang they try to find their sense of ‘family’.

After finishing this piece, I strongly believe that the title should be ‘Raising Christian Children’ instead of the current title, the book was heavily accompanied with passage from scripture. But, in all, it does give some good and sensible recommendation on how we should re-think our parenting style. Even if you are not really into religion, this book surely will gave you some good recommendations.

 

 

This article is a review on ‘Long Walk To Freedom’ volume 1 written by Nelson Mandela which was an autobiography of his life from 1918 to 1962. The book was published by Abacus in 1994.

The book started with a lot of African names of places and people that will puzzle you. Mandela describe his early life living in a village called Mvezo in Transkei. He was born to Xhosa tribe which is a part of Thembu people. His father was a councilor for King Dalindyebo. After the passing of the King, his father suggested Jongintaba as a successor, which then accepted by the local leadership and British ruler.

His Father however were then sacked after refusing to obey order from British magistrate, he lost his fortune and power. Mandela then lived with his mother in Qunu village. The name ‘Nelson’ was his English name given to him by his teacher when he was 7 years old. His birth name was Rolihlahla. His father died when he was 9. He was then lived with Jongintaba which act as Regent for Thembu people, he was considered as the Regent’s own son and lived in the royal residence in Mqhekezweni.

Mandela witness how the regent organized meeting with his tribal leader. The meeting thought Mandela that democracy means that every voiced. He witnessed how the regent will allow everybody to speak and organized succession meeting if consensus cannot be achieved. Mandela then further his studies at Clarkebury college, his worldview back then was still attached to Thembuland, he was aspired to be local councilor and nothing beyond that. He then went to Fort Hare to pursue his BA.

Fort Hare was the first place where his principle was tested. During the final year, Mandela was elected as a Student Representative Council (SRC) but he join other representatives in a boycott to press for more right. He was then summoned by the principal and given an ultimatum, to accept the SRC election result or to be expelled, he chosen the latter and get expelled. The regent then arrange a marriage for him, which he disagree and ran away to Johannesburg, where he started working and being politicized.

Mandela wrote “A man involve in the struggle was a man without a home life”. As his involvement with African National Congress (ANC) went deeper, he realized that much of his time with his family have to be sacrificed, later Mandela broke up with his wife, as she does not shared his political enthusiasm. One of the problem that have been discussed extensively in book is the cooperation of ANC with other group with different ideologies and racial background, particularly with the communist and Indian congress. He noted that although South African problem are special, it is not unique, it must be viewed on a larger context which is to join forces to eradicate human prejudice in the world.

In his book, he stressed out on how education is a vital component to lift society to a higher level. Education, Mandela wrote can turn “a child of a farmworkers to become the president of a great nation”.  The ANC struggle to ensure that the then-Nationalist government provide similar education to African people as what have been received by the white. On the emergence of ANC rival group, the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), Mandela wrote that one have to be mature and suppress his own personal feelings. He wrote “to be a freedom fighter one must suppress many of the personal feelings that make one feel like a separate individual rather than part of the mass movement”.

The first volume described how the leaders of the opposition were put on a Treason Trial for their non-violent protest. The state however lost the legal battle, and they were released. Mandela have been banned for attending any meeting and gathering several time, after the treason trial he went underground and help organized arm resistance against the state. But he was captured again in 1962 and put to trial, he deliberately refused to call any witnesses for his defense and turn the plea into his political speech. The first volume of the book ends with Mandela sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.