Wait, there hasn't been a post in nearly 18 months. And I haven't been in Turkmenistan in over two years. Why this? Why now? I am long gone and I will not be going back. At this point, nearly all the other expats I worked with are no longer in Turkmenistan and I have minimal contact with anyone still there.
I have always pulled my punches with this blog. There was always a reluctance to write too critically about any location I was in, especially when I was in Turkmenistan (though the Turkmen President falling off his horse was too good to not write about). After all, it is essentially North. Korea. Lite. Perhaps I should say "was" since I haven't been there for two years, but my former colleagues have assured me it is as dysfunctional as ever.
Doing a quick check and review of an older post of mine on Turkmenistan's place in various rankings around the world, not much has changed. The country is still pulling in awful marks from essentially everyone:
* Human Rights Watch (Turkmenistan profile link)
* Freedom House (Turkmenistan profile link)
* Reporters Without Borders (Turkmenistan profile link)
* Transparency International (Turkmenistan profile link)
Yep, still not a great place when the only places you beat are Eritrea and the actual North Korea (as per the Reporters Without Borders report).
Turkmenistan's great struggle is not that it is terrible, but that it will continue to be terrible. It sits atop the fourth largest natural gas reserves (direct link to .pdf of the 2015 BP Statistical Review and go to page 20). But all this wealth will not reach the vast majority of the people while it has such a petty and vainglorious leader. Yes, petty enough to insist upon a yacht as a bribe. This was actually semi-openly discussed among expats in at least one of the client offices while I was there. It was never much discussed in front of Turkmen nationals since you could never be certain who actually supported the president as opposed to those who paid lip service to his ego-centrism. And with visas so difficult to come by and deportations so legitimate a threat, the trend was towards discretion around locals.
In the past, I was pulling my punches about the potential of the country. I laid out two main stumbling blocks to developing the country's resources: distribution of wealth and available labor. The labor issue is straightforward enough. People there are not well educated and the nature of the education they receive is very dogmatic and rigid. There are gains, but people will be educated only just enough to perform the work needed, not well enough to create what one might call a creative class. In its current form, the education system there will never lead to an innovative or entrepreneurial society. Additionally, Turkmen nationals need an exit visa to leave the country and get a foreign education. This further restricts which type (and how loyal) of a person is allowed out. As for the distribution of wealth, well, this report sums it up well when it says:
"Twenty percent of the Agency’s revenues go into the State budget. The other 80 percent disappear into the murky, shadow economy that President Berdymukhamedov has built though a legal, but highly unethical, system of law that he created under the noses of western officials, but which has never been analyzed, until now."
With leadership like that, Turkmenistan will never prosper. It will improve in some ways, perhaps many ways, but it will fall deeply short of its potential as long as it is led by such a petty and insecure person.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
Monday, July 15, 2013
tuesdays in turkmenistan: the potential of Galkynysh
I have been sitting on this post for a couple weeks. Now that I'm back in the blogging spirit, this is a good time to post. It would have come out last week had it not been for my visit to Ashgabat last week. In fact, my visit was partially related to this subject, but alas, no further details can be provided on the matter.
There is a massive gas field in Turkmenistan called Galkynysh. The field, which used to be called Yoloten, is massive. One of the largest gas fields in the world ever to exist. If you have ever heard me speak about the potential of this country and where its financial future lies, it is this field I have in mind. It is the country's goal to produce gas from this field soon, and eventually reach quantities that will sustain pipelines to China, India, Europe and anywhere else they can find a market. Turkmenistan has the opportunity to become like some of the oil-rich Gulf nations. High resource wealth mixed with low local population means a very-high average standard of living can be achieved. There are two major social stumbling blocks in addition to the many technical and geopolitical ones. Only touching on the technical aspects briefly, I want to mention that this is not an easy field. Drilling will require a reasonably high level of technical sophistication. In terms of geopolitics, gas means pipelines for Turkmenistan as a land-locked nation (ignoring the Caspian). Pipelines need to be built and maintained. Ok, there's one to China now (in addition to the one through Kazakhstan and Russia). But building one to India, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, will not be easy and a trans-Caspian line to Azerbaijan and eventually Europe will also meet with resistance, mostly from Russia. I think these are actually all fixable problems. Some of it is technical, some is political, and money will carry the day to get things done.
Back to the social stumbling blocks. First, a high average standard of living does not mean a good standard of living for everyone. Some people will do very well, and there are always some who do exceedingly well for themselves in places like this, while others will do moderately well (ie: the future professional/middle class), and there will be those who do not fare so well. Perhaps progress will bypass their lives or social programs will not reach all corners of the country or perhaps plain old ethnic divisions will continue. Ashgabat has become a shining marble beacon already, but the rest of the country has yet to be so fortunate. How long and how extreme can the disparity become until it creates unrest? The next 10-20 years will be interesting to say the least.
The other social stumbling block is labor. As in, where does the labor come from? Does Turkmenistan want to go the same direction as some of the Gulf states and import significant amounts of expats? For its own sake, I think it should not and in practical terms, it may not be able to anyway. Countries like Bahrain and Qatar have less than one million citizens each, but have total populations that are more than half-expat. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer with less than a tenth the population of the U.S. (which itself produces more oil than most people realize). Turkmenistan, with 5-6 million residents does not seem eager to embrace significant amounts of outside labor. For sure it exists, as evidenced by significant numbers of Turkish construction projects. However, the Chinese, despite their investments into the country, have been rebuffed many times and only a limited number of visas are available for Chinese nationals to support the operations of the Chinese state company CNPC in the eastern part of Turkmenistan. And vast waves of cheap labor from India and Southeast Asia like you see in Bahrain, Qatar, and U.A.E., have yet to flood into the country. There are obvious hurdles in terms of getting visas, but additionally, local labor is still relatively cheap. The challenge lies with the quality of local labor. It would benefit the country to significantly invest in education and health services. The benefits are numerous: educated labor force, reduced population growth (which is rather high), and the ability to employ the nation's citizens in the nation's own projects. This allows more of the investment to stay in the country instead of going abroad with expats like myself.
There is so much potential here. Turkmenistan has before it so much opportunity, but fulfilling these opportunities depends on the people here, especially the political leaders.
There is a massive gas field in Turkmenistan called Galkynysh. The field, which used to be called Yoloten, is massive. One of the largest gas fields in the world ever to exist. If you have ever heard me speak about the potential of this country and where its financial future lies, it is this field I have in mind. It is the country's goal to produce gas from this field soon, and eventually reach quantities that will sustain pipelines to China, India, Europe and anywhere else they can find a market. Turkmenistan has the opportunity to become like some of the oil-rich Gulf nations. High resource wealth mixed with low local population means a very-high average standard of living can be achieved. There are two major social stumbling blocks in addition to the many technical and geopolitical ones. Only touching on the technical aspects briefly, I want to mention that this is not an easy field. Drilling will require a reasonably high level of technical sophistication. In terms of geopolitics, gas means pipelines for Turkmenistan as a land-locked nation (ignoring the Caspian). Pipelines need to be built and maintained. Ok, there's one to China now (in addition to the one through Kazakhstan and Russia). But building one to India, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, will not be easy and a trans-Caspian line to Azerbaijan and eventually Europe will also meet with resistance, mostly from Russia. I think these are actually all fixable problems. Some of it is technical, some is political, and money will carry the day to get things done.
Back to the social stumbling blocks. First, a high average standard of living does not mean a good standard of living for everyone. Some people will do very well, and there are always some who do exceedingly well for themselves in places like this, while others will do moderately well (ie: the future professional/middle class), and there will be those who do not fare so well. Perhaps progress will bypass their lives or social programs will not reach all corners of the country or perhaps plain old ethnic divisions will continue. Ashgabat has become a shining marble beacon already, but the rest of the country has yet to be so fortunate. How long and how extreme can the disparity become until it creates unrest? The next 10-20 years will be interesting to say the least.
The other social stumbling block is labor. As in, where does the labor come from? Does Turkmenistan want to go the same direction as some of the Gulf states and import significant amounts of expats? For its own sake, I think it should not and in practical terms, it may not be able to anyway. Countries like Bahrain and Qatar have less than one million citizens each, but have total populations that are more than half-expat. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer with less than a tenth the population of the U.S. (which itself produces more oil than most people realize). Turkmenistan, with 5-6 million residents does not seem eager to embrace significant amounts of outside labor. For sure it exists, as evidenced by significant numbers of Turkish construction projects. However, the Chinese, despite their investments into the country, have been rebuffed many times and only a limited number of visas are available for Chinese nationals to support the operations of the Chinese state company CNPC in the eastern part of Turkmenistan. And vast waves of cheap labor from India and Southeast Asia like you see in Bahrain, Qatar, and U.A.E., have yet to flood into the country. There are obvious hurdles in terms of getting visas, but additionally, local labor is still relatively cheap. The challenge lies with the quality of local labor. It would benefit the country to significantly invest in education and health services. The benefits are numerous: educated labor force, reduced population growth (which is rather high), and the ability to employ the nation's citizens in the nation's own projects. This allows more of the investment to stay in the country instead of going abroad with expats like myself.
There is so much potential here. Turkmenistan has before it so much opportunity, but fulfilling these opportunities depends on the people here, especially the political leaders.
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
tuesdays in turkmenistan: wither JLo
Turkmenistan made it into the U.S. news cycle! Albeit, only because it involved prominent popular culture figure, Jennifer Lopez, often known as JLo (or less desirably as Jenny from the Block).
As has been reported in many articles, JLo performed a concert at a hotel resort area known as Avaza which is near the city of Turkmenbasy (which is about a three hour drive north-northwest of Balkanabat). Of course, with the reputation Turkmenistan, JLo was roundly criticized for the performance, which some claim she was paid upwards of $1.5 million for.
Is the apparent outrage with her performance justified? Can she (or her management team) claim to have not realized the nature of the performance, what the country is like, and that the President would be there? Going back to that first question, I'm not sure I really care about the outrage or whether people should be upset. Partly because I also work here, thus lending credibility/support to the regime and partly because this is how capitalism works. You pay someone for a service or product and they provide said items. Is it blood money or something terrible? Well, probably, sort of, indirectly yes. The advantage for me is that I am but one tiny blip in the NSA's PRISM net and I do not work in an industry where public sentiment of me, as in my individual self, matters. JLo's professional well-being relies on her being popular and inoffensive enough to avoid any public outcry.
Now going back to that second question (or really set of questions) from the previous paragraph. Should JLo and her team have known better? I think so, but I am also far more familiar with the affairs of Turkmenistan than the average person, though that does not take much. Part of it will depend on just who they interacted with to organize the event. Was it with CNPC as most articles state? If that's the case, then they should have done some basic research into what CNPC does (oil and gas), where they are from (China), who owns them (Chinese government), and what specifically CNPC was doing organizing a party in Avaza. Perhaps not known to Team JLo, but CNPC operates on the other side of the country. But Avaza is the crown jewel of Turkmenistan vacation spots, or at least that's what the billions the Turkmen government puts into the project want it to be, so perhaps it's just a good place to have a party. What is generally well-known within Turkmenistan is that the President loves to have his picture taken. After all, he's on the front page (above the fold!) of the national paper every single day. He also likes to be at major events, in this case, the grand opening of recently-completed parts of Avaza. To everyone in Turkmenistan, it is totally logical and expected the President would be at such an event. To people on the outside, especially Americans, it seems odd, arguably unexpected. After all, U.S. Presidents do not show up to the grand openings of every major construction project. However, the comparison is best made to a state or large city, something with a population similar to Turkmenistan's roughly 5 million. Would the mayor or governor appear at such an event? Sure, there is a decent chance for an appearance. And is getting JLo to perform for the President effectively a subtle bribe by CNPC? Well, it's not even subtle, though not as blatant as gifting him a yacht or whoever bought him this Bugatti. JLo's presence both strokes his ego and gives him more legitimacy, as if to say, "See, big American stars sing Happy Birthday to me so I can't be a bad guy."
Quite interestingly is the reaction from people here who are reading about this. Understandably, many people, especially the younger women, were excited that JLo, as an internationally known entertainer, came to their country. This is a big deal to them as it somehow validates the importance of the country along with the validation it provides to the President. What locals here seem more surprised by is the characterization of their country as an oppressive dictatorship with in-name-only democracy and a poor human rights record. They find this so surprising because it is simply not true for much if the nation. Well, the in-name-only democracy part is true for everyone. After all, after the previous President died, the current one became interim President through the magic of having the person who was supposed to be the interim President arrested along with many others. Then, he changed the constitution to allow himself to run in the next election since the previous constitution forbade interim President's from becoming elected. And Bob's your uncle. Anyway, people here were surprised because conditions here are improving. In the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Central Asian countries in particular badly struggled. So far from everything, very poor, and often reliant on Russia for contact with the West. The country struggled for several years, but has slowly been gathering wealth from its natural resources. Of course the wealth is not evenly distributed, but most people are seeing basic needs (ie: housing, food, gas) provided so they are happy enough and certainly see the improvement in very real and important terms. Even if the political leadership siphons the vast majority of the money away and corruption is rampant, conditions today are still much improved from what they were 10-15 years ago.
As for JLo and her supposed moral dilemma. She can donate her concert fee to charity, take the write-off, reap the positive press benefits and move on. Or she can wait it out and Americans will find something else to care about for 15 minutes.
As has been reported in many articles, JLo performed a concert at a hotel resort area known as Avaza which is near the city of Turkmenbasy (which is about a three hour drive north-northwest of Balkanabat). Of course, with the reputation Turkmenistan, JLo was roundly criticized for the performance, which some claim she was paid upwards of $1.5 million for.
Is the apparent outrage with her performance justified? Can she (or her management team) claim to have not realized the nature of the performance, what the country is like, and that the President would be there? Going back to that first question, I'm not sure I really care about the outrage or whether people should be upset. Partly because I also work here, thus lending credibility/support to the regime and partly because this is how capitalism works. You pay someone for a service or product and they provide said items. Is it blood money or something terrible? Well, probably, sort of, indirectly yes. The advantage for me is that I am but one tiny blip in the NSA's PRISM net and I do not work in an industry where public sentiment of me, as in my individual self, matters. JLo's professional well-being relies on her being popular and inoffensive enough to avoid any public outcry.
Now going back to that second question (or really set of questions) from the previous paragraph. Should JLo and her team have known better? I think so, but I am also far more familiar with the affairs of Turkmenistan than the average person, though that does not take much. Part of it will depend on just who they interacted with to organize the event. Was it with CNPC as most articles state? If that's the case, then they should have done some basic research into what CNPC does (oil and gas), where they are from (China), who owns them (Chinese government), and what specifically CNPC was doing organizing a party in Avaza. Perhaps not known to Team JLo, but CNPC operates on the other side of the country. But Avaza is the crown jewel of Turkmenistan vacation spots, or at least that's what the billions the Turkmen government puts into the project want it to be, so perhaps it's just a good place to have a party. What is generally well-known within Turkmenistan is that the President loves to have his picture taken. After all, he's on the front page (above the fold!) of the national paper every single day. He also likes to be at major events, in this case, the grand opening of recently-completed parts of Avaza. To everyone in Turkmenistan, it is totally logical and expected the President would be at such an event. To people on the outside, especially Americans, it seems odd, arguably unexpected. After all, U.S. Presidents do not show up to the grand openings of every major construction project. However, the comparison is best made to a state or large city, something with a population similar to Turkmenistan's roughly 5 million. Would the mayor or governor appear at such an event? Sure, there is a decent chance for an appearance. And is getting JLo to perform for the President effectively a subtle bribe by CNPC? Well, it's not even subtle, though not as blatant as gifting him a yacht or whoever bought him this Bugatti. JLo's presence both strokes his ego and gives him more legitimacy, as if to say, "See, big American stars sing Happy Birthday to me so I can't be a bad guy."
Quite interestingly is the reaction from people here who are reading about this. Understandably, many people, especially the younger women, were excited that JLo, as an internationally known entertainer, came to their country. This is a big deal to them as it somehow validates the importance of the country along with the validation it provides to the President. What locals here seem more surprised by is the characterization of their country as an oppressive dictatorship with in-name-only democracy and a poor human rights record. They find this so surprising because it is simply not true for much if the nation. Well, the in-name-only democracy part is true for everyone. After all, after the previous President died, the current one became interim President through the magic of having the person who was supposed to be the interim President arrested along with many others. Then, he changed the constitution to allow himself to run in the next election since the previous constitution forbade interim President's from becoming elected. And Bob's your uncle. Anyway, people here were surprised because conditions here are improving. In the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Central Asian countries in particular badly struggled. So far from everything, very poor, and often reliant on Russia for contact with the West. The country struggled for several years, but has slowly been gathering wealth from its natural resources. Of course the wealth is not evenly distributed, but most people are seeing basic needs (ie: housing, food, gas) provided so they are happy enough and certainly see the improvement in very real and important terms. Even if the political leadership siphons the vast majority of the money away and corruption is rampant, conditions today are still much improved from what they were 10-15 years ago.
As for JLo and her supposed moral dilemma. She can donate her concert fee to charity, take the write-off, reap the positive press benefits and move on. Or she can wait it out and Americans will find something else to care about for 15 minutes.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
tuesdays in turkmenistan: all the king's men
Well, the VPN technology is not perfect and the connection is not entirely reliable to begin with.
Continuing where we left off, there was some amusing fall-out after the President's misadventure with the horse. Unsurprisingly, there were some local attempts to halt dissemination of the President's rendition of something that was not Gangnam Style. It's not clear how many days this went on for, perhaps only one or two because the videos spread quickly, but there were attempts to stop dissemination of videos at the airport. We had a few employees who were flying out the next day and they affirmed that they were also searched at the airport, made to login to their computers, and then their recently accessed pictures and videos were reviewed. Of course, much like in the EurasiaNet article, the airport personnel did not do a very thorough job of checking. One colleague told me he simply logged in under the generic username available on all company laptops. Logging in like this only shows default files and no pictures or video other than whatever Windows7 comes preloaded with. Not the most tech savvy group of individuals.
Ever since I heard about the attempt to halt dissemination, I have made it a point to try and show the video to as many people as possible. First, it is a hilarious fall. How often do you get to watch the leader of a nation face plant into the ground? If this happened in the U.S., it would be making every single news and semi-news program. Second, the race is obviously staged. You can clearly see the second place rider gaining on him easily towards the end. He was no doubt holding back until nearly the end. Frankly, everything about the Presidency here is staged. It makes for great theater to outsiders and deep reluctance to discuss it with locals. Third, Streisand Effect, enough said. Fourth, the attempt to stop distribution was so ham-handed, it pretty much typifies all that is wrong here. Fifth, there is apparently a rumor going around that it was not actually the President riding the horse. Evidently, this is some sort of attempt to make it seem like he did not fall off the horse, though it would imply that he's pathologically obsessed with his image. Well, it doesn't imply that at all. It makes it very, very clear.
Anyway, please watch the video. Find it on YouTube, go to the links above, something. It is hilarious.
Continuing where we left off, there was some amusing fall-out after the President's misadventure with the horse. Unsurprisingly, there were some local attempts to halt dissemination of the President's rendition of something that was not Gangnam Style. It's not clear how many days this went on for, perhaps only one or two because the videos spread quickly, but there were attempts to stop dissemination of videos at the airport. We had a few employees who were flying out the next day and they affirmed that they were also searched at the airport, made to login to their computers, and then their recently accessed pictures and videos were reviewed. Of course, much like in the EurasiaNet article, the airport personnel did not do a very thorough job of checking. One colleague told me he simply logged in under the generic username available on all company laptops. Logging in like this only shows default files and no pictures or video other than whatever Windows7 comes preloaded with. Not the most tech savvy group of individuals.
Ever since I heard about the attempt to halt dissemination, I have made it a point to try and show the video to as many people as possible. First, it is a hilarious fall. How often do you get to watch the leader of a nation face plant into the ground? If this happened in the U.S., it would be making every single news and semi-news program. Second, the race is obviously staged. You can clearly see the second place rider gaining on him easily towards the end. He was no doubt holding back until nearly the end. Frankly, everything about the Presidency here is staged. It makes for great theater to outsiders and deep reluctance to discuss it with locals. Third, Streisand Effect, enough said. Fourth, the attempt to stop distribution was so ham-handed, it pretty much typifies all that is wrong here. Fifth, there is apparently a rumor going around that it was not actually the President riding the horse. Evidently, this is some sort of attempt to make it seem like he did not fall off the horse, though it would imply that he's pathologically obsessed with his image. Well, it doesn't imply that at all. It makes it very, very clear.
Anyway, please watch the video. Find it on YouTube, go to the links above, something. It is hilarious.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: airport shenanigans
The Ashgabat airport was a hot mess if silliness today when we arrived from Balkanabat this afternoon. It was evidently in the starting throes of a closure as the President will be arriving from Turkmenbasy later this evening (but hopefully before my own departure). When we landed, we were shunted away from the normal egress points of the airport for arriving flights back upstairs to the departing flight area. And then loaded onto buses. Buses that took us beyond the grounds of the airport and then we got off. Simple. Makes total sense.
Admittedly, our drivers who were supposed to pick us up rode in on the buses and then told us to get on since they had parked the cars near where the buses would be dropping us off. What I found amusing is that a group of about 15 Chinese guys who were on the flight from Balkanabat to Ashgabat refused to get on the buses. The police were yelling at them, they were yelling back, obviously no one was understanding anyone. They ended up going back inside the airport. I hope that worked out well for them.
Admittedly, our drivers who were supposed to pick us up rode in on the buses and then told us to get on since they had parked the cars near where the buses would be dropping us off. What I found amusing is that a group of about 15 Chinese guys who were on the flight from Balkanabat to Ashgabat refused to get on the buses. The police were yelling at them, they were yelling back, obviously no one was understanding anyone. They ended up going back inside the airport. I hope that worked out well for them.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: deportation (not me)
Don't worry, or worry the same amount you had previously, for I am not one of the few being deported (and neither are any of my coworkers). Perhaps that is an outcome some of you slightly hope for, presumably only because you want me to come home and not because you would like to see me spend 15 days in jail before coming home. This is the outcome, or seems to be the likely outcome, for some individuals currently in the clink. Two weeks ago, there was an industry event attended by at least one of the major operators and many service companies. Post-event, there were post-events that evidently took on an adult theme. The word is that four people, a mix of operator and service company employees, are being deported as a result of the evening's "festivities" as I shall so discretely call them.
This is the real deal. This is why newly arrived expats get the lecture about being on good behavior and not metaphorically or literally screwing around. This is why we have an informal 11pm curfew. We get well compensated for being here and it is not because it is dangerous or there is some pervasive risk of malaria. It is because when you are here, it's not that there is no freedom, but there is a distinct decrease in the amount to which I am accustomed. It would sound much more dramatic if I could boldly proclaim that that there is no freedom here, but that would not be true.
What they have is much more watching. Sure, I can walk around the street and, if I am by myself and dressed discretely, I can blend in and won't attract a second look. Well, only if a walk suitably slow enough. My typical fast and purposeful walk seems to draw quite a bit of attention since fast-walking was evidently banned. However, in any sort of expat group, our English and everyone else's appearance will out us very quickly as foreigners. That's not really a problem, but it simply means you cannot lose yourself in a sea of anonymity. People will look, some will stare. Most of the ones who stare are likely staring at the arm sleeve of tattoos belonging to a colleague. I have no doubts that the security guards at the base make a note of every time I/we exit the base and return to the base in the evenings. My presence (and that of every expat) here must be registered. If we go somewhere else like Ashgabat or one of the port cities to go offshore, then that move must be registered. I am being watched. It is not sophisticated. In fact, it is rather clumsy at times. But being in a country with very few foreigners leads to a pervasive sense of always sticking out and attracting attention, not for what you are doing, but for simply existing in this place.
I will have to take solace in the knowledge that at least I am not a spy, because this would make it terrible to do my job. Maybe.
This is the real deal. This is why newly arrived expats get the lecture about being on good behavior and not metaphorically or literally screwing around. This is why we have an informal 11pm curfew. We get well compensated for being here and it is not because it is dangerous or there is some pervasive risk of malaria. It is because when you are here, it's not that there is no freedom, but there is a distinct decrease in the amount to which I am accustomed. It would sound much more dramatic if I could boldly proclaim that that there is no freedom here, but that would not be true.
What they have is much more watching. Sure, I can walk around the street and, if I am by myself and dressed discretely, I can blend in and won't attract a second look. Well, only if a walk suitably slow enough. My typical fast and purposeful walk seems to draw quite a bit of attention since fast-walking was evidently banned. However, in any sort of expat group, our English and everyone else's appearance will out us very quickly as foreigners. That's not really a problem, but it simply means you cannot lose yourself in a sea of anonymity. People will look, some will stare. Most of the ones who stare are likely staring at the arm sleeve of tattoos belonging to a colleague. I have no doubts that the security guards at the base make a note of every time I/we exit the base and return to the base in the evenings. My presence (and that of every expat) here must be registered. If we go somewhere else like Ashgabat or one of the port cities to go offshore, then that move must be registered. I am being watched. It is not sophisticated. In fact, it is rather clumsy at times. But being in a country with very few foreigners leads to a pervasive sense of always sticking out and attracting attention, not for what you are doing, but for simply existing in this place.
I will have to take solace in the knowledge that at least I am not a spy, because this would make it terrible to do my job. Maybe.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
TUM air force
The Caspian Sea has a problem of definition. What exactly makes a sea a sea? When does a sea become a lake? This matters because of how maritime boundaries are defined. Currently, the Caspian boundaries are under dispute. There used to be a clear line of sorts in the Soviet era. The border was simply between the Soviet Union and Iran and the Soviet Union had the power to define the terms more unilaterally. Now, five countries border the Caspian and they do not agree on which parts belong to which country. And what does any of this have to do with the Turkmenistan Air Force? Lots. Maybe.
The Air Force has been flying their Balkanabat-based planes several times in the past several weeks. They have a handful of Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft based here. Why have they been flying these planes? Well, the weather has been good so perhaps they are taking photos of the countryside. Alternatively, some combination of training and a show-of-force exercise. After looking at a map, it should not be shocking that Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan dispute the portion of the Caspian that is between their two countries. Furthermore, there is an oil and gas operator that wishes to drill in a block that is in this disputed zone. This company was trying to conduct seismic operations there in the past couple months, but they ran into some problems with getting their work completed. This is hardly the first time some force or implied force has been used when it comes to oil and gas activity in the Caspian.
The uncertainty is bad for business. This operator needs to tender and solicit bids for services for the work they wish to perform. We are working on such a bid. That's not private or surprising information. We bid on almost anything possible that is related to our business. If an operator says they plan to drill a well, providing services for that is the business we are in so we will of course submit a bid. Perhaps there are cases where we may submit a bid, but then withdraw the bid or not really want to perform the work if the risks are too great or the legal climate is too uncertain. Nonetheless, a bid would still be prepared. But such a bid in this case needs to take into account the risk premium for being in a disputed area and the potentially uncertain and non-guaranteed security situation. These things push prices a certain direction and I can give you the hint that uncertainty and risk do not lead to lower prices. This is ultimately bad for the industry in the long-term because it raises the cost of doing business. This is where a stable and secure geopolitical climate, something that is very much taken for granted in the U.S., becomes incredibly important out here. The uncertainty here leads to me being able to hear from my office military planes flying around outside.
The Air Force has been flying their Balkanabat-based planes several times in the past several weeks. They have a handful of Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft based here. Why have they been flying these planes? Well, the weather has been good so perhaps they are taking photos of the countryside. Alternatively, some combination of training and a show-of-force exercise. After looking at a map, it should not be shocking that Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan dispute the portion of the Caspian that is between their two countries. Furthermore, there is an oil and gas operator that wishes to drill in a block that is in this disputed zone. This company was trying to conduct seismic operations there in the past couple months, but they ran into some problems with getting their work completed. This is hardly the first time some force or implied force has been used when it comes to oil and gas activity in the Caspian.
The uncertainty is bad for business. This operator needs to tender and solicit bids for services for the work they wish to perform. We are working on such a bid. That's not private or surprising information. We bid on almost anything possible that is related to our business. If an operator says they plan to drill a well, providing services for that is the business we are in so we will of course submit a bid. Perhaps there are cases where we may submit a bid, but then withdraw the bid or not really want to perform the work if the risks are too great or the legal climate is too uncertain. Nonetheless, a bid would still be prepared. But such a bid in this case needs to take into account the risk premium for being in a disputed area and the potentially uncertain and non-guaranteed security situation. These things push prices a certain direction and I can give you the hint that uncertainty and risk do not lead to lower prices. This is ultimately bad for the industry in the long-term because it raises the cost of doing business. This is where a stable and secure geopolitical climate, something that is very much taken for granted in the U.S., becomes incredibly important out here. The uncertainty here leads to me being able to hear from my office military planes flying around outside.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: which news to believe
I find the media coverage of Turkmenistan quite interesting. There's the obvious interest since I am here much of the time and ongoing events can potentially affect me. However, the disconnect between some of what is reported and what I can personally see and gather from the people I talk to is what I find most fascinating. Obviously it's not all sunshine and rainbows here, but the compelling question you should always ask yourself when reading anything is "Why should I believe the accuracy of this information?" Why should you believe anything I write here? Do we have a closer personal relationship built over many years that leads you to believe most of what I put forth? Do I seem genuine and interested in finding the "truth" of a situation? Is my writing crisp and professional (which it is obviously not) and thus carries more weight? I hope it is not the last one. A silver tongue is not the same as being truthful and honest.
A story about the abuses of the political leadership (original source) sounds very plausible. It follows with what you can reasonably expect in terms of behavior in a weak "democracy" and it matches with what you can hear "on the ground" from what people are willing to share. Of course, with no reasonable way to publicly quote sources without fear of reprisals, journalism cannot be as forthcoming.
I have seen a couple different articles (and now cannot find links!) discussing what how the Avaza (or Awaza) holiday resort area near Turkmenbasy along the Caspian coast is a failure and mostly empty. Most of these have come from .ru sourced websites, though most of the news aggregation on Eurasia.net comes from .ru sites originally. This conflicts with what local staff here have told me about how popular the resort is and that it is very hard to get a room at any of the hotels and that people like to go there on the weekends when possible. I don't see a very compelling case for why local staff here would lie to me about the popularity of the resort. You could make the case for some national pride, but on other subjects, these same people are not exactly flag-waving zealots. At the same time, why would a media site report the resort to be empty and abandoned? That is the question that makes you wonder. Do Russian or other media sites have a compelling interest in making Turkmenistan look bad? Perhaps they do or perhaps it is even a personal animosity at the reporter or site owner level. However, there is plenty of fodder for criticism and they do not need to misrepresent the situation. There is enough low-hanging fruit to feast on when it comes to critiques of the place.
More suitable for criticism would be the home demolitions in the fifth paragraph from bottom. And this is true from what I have gathered from people who have been here longer. Another anecdote is about the Presidential Hotel where important visitors stay and it apparently costs up to 400 USD/night. The front facade is very nice, but when it was first built, s shanty-town residential area was behind the hotel and visible from rooms that faced that direction. That residential area is no longer there and I will give you one guess as to who insisted upon its "rehabilitation". You could make the argument for ideas like eminent domain and urban renewal and the like. However, eminent domain rests upon the idea of fair compensation, and while that value can be disputed, it is certainly larger than zero.
Then there are stories about troubled airline maintenance which are particularly eye-catching for the simple reason that I fly on those planes. Is this a believable story or merely a baseless disparagement of the state airline? I'll let you know after my next flight.
A story about the abuses of the political leadership (original source) sounds very plausible. It follows with what you can reasonably expect in terms of behavior in a weak "democracy" and it matches with what you can hear "on the ground" from what people are willing to share. Of course, with no reasonable way to publicly quote sources without fear of reprisals, journalism cannot be as forthcoming.
I have seen a couple different articles (and now cannot find links!) discussing what how the Avaza (or Awaza) holiday resort area near Turkmenbasy along the Caspian coast is a failure and mostly empty. Most of these have come from .ru sourced websites, though most of the news aggregation on Eurasia.net comes from .ru sites originally. This conflicts with what local staff here have told me about how popular the resort is and that it is very hard to get a room at any of the hotels and that people like to go there on the weekends when possible. I don't see a very compelling case for why local staff here would lie to me about the popularity of the resort. You could make the case for some national pride, but on other subjects, these same people are not exactly flag-waving zealots. At the same time, why would a media site report the resort to be empty and abandoned? That is the question that makes you wonder. Do Russian or other media sites have a compelling interest in making Turkmenistan look bad? Perhaps they do or perhaps it is even a personal animosity at the reporter or site owner level. However, there is plenty of fodder for criticism and they do not need to misrepresent the situation. There is enough low-hanging fruit to feast on when it comes to critiques of the place.
More suitable for criticism would be the home demolitions in the fifth paragraph from bottom. And this is true from what I have gathered from people who have been here longer. Another anecdote is about the Presidential Hotel where important visitors stay and it apparently costs up to 400 USD/night. The front facade is very nice, but when it was first built, s shanty-town residential area was behind the hotel and visible from rooms that faced that direction. That residential area is no longer there and I will give you one guess as to who insisted upon its "rehabilitation". You could make the argument for ideas like eminent domain and urban renewal and the like. However, eminent domain rests upon the idea of fair compensation, and while that value can be disputed, it is certainly larger than zero.
Then there are stories about troubled airline maintenance which are particularly eye-catching for the simple reason that I fly on those planes. Is this a believable story or merely a baseless disparagement of the state airline? I'll let you know after my next flight.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
yet another holiday
Yesterday was yet another in the long list of holidays here. Today is also a holiday, but since it's also the weekend, that's somewhat immaterial. I'm not even sure what Constitution Day is and how it is fundamentally different than Independence Day. I've conjured up a non-researched hypothesis that countries with lots of public holidays are trying to give their people something artificial to celebrate in order to distract the citizenry from the shenanigans of the leadership. With some grant money, this could really go places.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: because turkmenistan
Because Turkmenistan. It has replaced "It's a free country" as my go-to line to describe this place and why things are the way they are. Why did someone's visa application get rejected? Why does it take a month to clear anything from customs? Why are social networking sites blocked on the internet? (My connection is through the satellite at work.) Why does the President have a green Bugatti Veyron? Why did I have 15 shots of vodka last Friday? Why is this being posted on Thursday despite being called "tuesdays in turkmenistan"? The answer to all of these is simple. Because Turkmenistan.
While this will not become a series like this Because China blog, it seems a very fitting way to describe the peculiarity of the place. There are a couple new people in the camp including a fellow American and in my attempt to help them cope with some of the absurdities, this has become one my frequent responses to questions that attempt to delve too deeply into the mysterious wonder that is Turkmenistan. It's sort of my way of saying to not worry about it and just accept the system here. Keep in mind that I'm not saying we cannot change anything here, but we do need to pick and choose what we can reasonably expect to change and try to improve. Admittedly, sometimes it is a way of saying "I don't know and I cannot be bothered to find out". Such instances are not as common as you might think. I do genuinely want to understand why certain social constructs exist here, but have not had the time to pursue a deep sociological study of the people and cultural history. Also, I don't speak Turkmen or Russian.
If you're wondering why this entry is so short. Because Turkmenistan. And month end.
While this will not become a series like this Because China blog, it seems a very fitting way to describe the peculiarity of the place. There are a couple new people in the camp including a fellow American and in my attempt to help them cope with some of the absurdities, this has become one my frequent responses to questions that attempt to delve too deeply into the mysterious wonder that is Turkmenistan. It's sort of my way of saying to not worry about it and just accept the system here. Keep in mind that I'm not saying we cannot change anything here, but we do need to pick and choose what we can reasonably expect to change and try to improve. Admittedly, sometimes it is a way of saying "I don't know and I cannot be bothered to find out". Such instances are not as common as you might think. I do genuinely want to understand why certain social constructs exist here, but have not had the time to pursue a deep sociological study of the people and cultural history. Also, I don't speak Turkmen or Russian.
If you're wondering why this entry is so short. Because Turkmenistan. And month end.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
pi day yesterday, travel day tomorrow
Yesterday, being March 14, or 3/14 or 3.14 was pi day. If you didn't get a fancy t-shirt to commemorate the event, then that's a darn shame. Of course, the notion of pi day seems oddly American because most places write the date dd.mm.yyyy but in the U.S. it is standard to write the month first like mm.dd.yyyy which is of course silly since it confounds any ordering by date. The only time you should write the month before the day is if you are also writing the year before the month like yyyy.mm.dd. That's also the best way to label files that have a date component so that you can sort by title and get them in chronological order. To avoid all ambiguity, I have taken to dating documents which I sign in a year-month-day format but I use a three letter version of the month. Hence, if I sign something, I write 2012/Mar/15 as opposed to 2012/03/15 because the all-number form can still be misinterpreted if it is the 12th day of the month or earlier. Why am I spending time writing this? Frankly, I have no idea, but I just felt like sharing one of the many reasons I cannot sleep at night: my terrible fear that someone will misinterpret another person's date and then miss a meeting or get together or some grand soiree.
Anyway, the time is rapidly approaching for me to head to the airport. The airport with the four bag x-rays and three metal detectors. This time, I will be traveling with a bag within a bag. Due to what I brought out here last time for other people, I took two suitcases. Now, I have nested one inside the other like those Russian nesting dolls since I only travel with a couple days worth of clothes and whatever clothing I have determined I do not need here. This time, I'm bringing back socks. Why I had 20 pair here is a mystery I cannot fathom so the great sock reduction has taken place.
You're still reading this? There is no great insight in this post or witty commentary about Turkmenistan. Well, maybe a little bit. After Chinese food two nights ago, we had sushi last night. Seriously, sushi. I'll give them an E for effort, but it was clear that the fish, while not spoiled, was also not fresh. It lacked the color and crisp flavor and freshness that truly fresh fish has. I'm no fish/seafood expert, but I'd venture to guess that most of what we had was previously frozen which is somewhat understandable given the fact that Turkmenistan does not border an ocean. Also, I've been giving a lot of thought to what the Republican primary says about the U.S. Anyway, off the the airport soon. Goodnight.
Anyway, the time is rapidly approaching for me to head to the airport. The airport with the four bag x-rays and three metal detectors. This time, I will be traveling with a bag within a bag. Due to what I brought out here last time for other people, I took two suitcases. Now, I have nested one inside the other like those Russian nesting dolls since I only travel with a couple days worth of clothes and whatever clothing I have determined I do not need here. This time, I'm bringing back socks. Why I had 20 pair here is a mystery I cannot fathom so the great sock reduction has taken place.
You're still reading this? There is no great insight in this post or witty commentary about Turkmenistan. Well, maybe a little bit. After Chinese food two nights ago, we had sushi last night. Seriously, sushi. I'll give them an E for effort, but it was clear that the fish, while not spoiled, was also not fresh. It lacked the color and crisp flavor and freshness that truly fresh fish has. I'm no fish/seafood expert, but I'd venture to guess that most of what we had was previously frozen which is somewhat understandable given the fact that Turkmenistan does not border an ocean. Also, I've been giving a lot of thought to what the Republican primary says about the U.S. Anyway, off the the airport soon. Goodnight.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: a visitor
We had an unusual visitor to the base last week. The U.S. Ambassador to Turkmenistan came to our base. Seriously. He was in Balkanabat for some civic events related to some U.S.-Turkmen programs and had some time in his schedule. And rather coincidentally, I was the one to greet him when he arrived. And not just because I'm an American. The week before, someone from the embassy called the main number at the base. Like all general calls, it went through reception and ended up going to me. It didn't go to me as an American. It more went to me because the particular set of people who might have otherwise taken the call were all out of the office at that particular moment. Thus, I ended up taking the call, trading some e-mails, and ended up as their point of contact prior to the visit.
Why visit us? Why not? We're here, largish (in a relative sense), foreign (and one could argue that we're foreign no matter where we are), and do have a couple Americans working here after all. What we discussed was a mix of business, industry, and regional. No specifics will go here like always. You know, because the six people who read this are undoubtedly corporate/government spies. No, it's just that while most of the conversation was mundane and I'll discuss it in person, it just doesn't feel right to put it into the internet. And to be clear, it's not like I hung out with the Ambassador one-on-one for an hour. He was here with a Public Affairs person and a local embassy staffer. And I was with two people who are from the set of people who, had they been in the office, would have fielded the original call. Mostly, we discussed some of the basics of what we do here as an oilfield service company since they were not oilfield people. Then, we discussed some of the challenges of doing business in Turkmenistan. The specifics are what I will not share, but like many developing nations, the lack of consistent rules and procedures makes it difficult to conduct business. A phrase I have taken to using to describe some of the difficulties is, "Not your house, not your rules." It is largely irrelevant where you are from and how things get done there because now you are here and this is not the system of law and culture that you are familiar with. This fact, as aggravating as it may be, must be accepted. You are not in your home country and things will not work the same way here. If you wanted it to be like home, then you needed to stay at home. Again, not your house, not your rules.
If you see me in person, I'll be glad to share more about the Ambassador's visit, but I won't post here for the inter-tubes to cache forever. Oh, and ask me about the minders if you see me in person.
Why visit us? Why not? We're here, largish (in a relative sense), foreign (and one could argue that we're foreign no matter where we are), and do have a couple Americans working here after all. What we discussed was a mix of business, industry, and regional. No specifics will go here like always. You know, because the six people who read this are undoubtedly corporate/government spies. No, it's just that while most of the conversation was mundane and I'll discuss it in person, it just doesn't feel right to put it into the internet. And to be clear, it's not like I hung out with the Ambassador one-on-one for an hour. He was here with a Public Affairs person and a local embassy staffer. And I was with two people who are from the set of people who, had they been in the office, would have fielded the original call. Mostly, we discussed some of the basics of what we do here as an oilfield service company since they were not oilfield people. Then, we discussed some of the challenges of doing business in Turkmenistan. The specifics are what I will not share, but like many developing nations, the lack of consistent rules and procedures makes it difficult to conduct business. A phrase I have taken to using to describe some of the difficulties is, "Not your house, not your rules." It is largely irrelevant where you are from and how things get done there because now you are here and this is not the system of law and culture that you are familiar with. This fact, as aggravating as it may be, must be accepted. You are not in your home country and things will not work the same way here. If you wanted it to be like home, then you needed to stay at home. Again, not your house, not your rules.
If you see me in person, I'll be glad to share more about the Ambassador's visit, but I won't post here for the inter-tubes to cache forever. Oh, and ask me about the minders if you see me in person.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: closing in some more
This month's presidential election here serves as an excellent example of what seems to be the regression in progress that has been occurring here. Of course it was a sham. The results make that clear with 97% vote share for the president on 97% turnout. The next nearest candidate had 1.2% of the vote, but like the other non-incumbents, was never a viable candidate because this is not a viable democracy. I can lament on the restrictions of the U.S. system that will endlessly shunt us into a two-party system, but that's still a choice. Here, choice does not exist, at least not when it comes to the government. At this point, the question I most wonder about the election process here is if there will be another presidential election in five years like the current rules say there should be, or if he will simply declare himself "president for life" before that time.
Four weeks ago, I commented on report season, wherein Turkmenistan was universally getting some of the lowest marks. Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, Economist Intelligence Unit, Transparency International, and probably several others I have missed have all conducted different surveys measuring different things using different methodologies. However, the common thread is that any study ranking freedom, rights, choice, etc is one in which Turkmenistan fares poorly. There was a U.N. report that came out late last year that was highly critical of some elements of the situation here. It is available for download here (and this is a direct link to a .doc file). It points out concerns with several aspects of society including discrimination against ethnic minorities and women in education and employment, poverty, concerns about worker rights, insufficient access to education, domestic abuse, human trafficking, and the list just goes on and on. I'm not sure what presence the U.N. has here, but for an anecdote, I remember seeing a U.N. plane on the tarmac at the Ashgabat airport back when I was going on days off in October. It was a small jet with large "UN" letters on the side.
Another way it is slowly closing in here is a rule about dual passport holders. There are many people here who hold dual Russian and Turkmen citizenship. However, by the end of this year, they will be required to give up one of those passports. It strikes me as another form of the Turkmenization of ethnic minorities that occurred during the rule of the previous president. There is particular animosity towards Russians, and while the historical reasons for why it exists are clear enough, that hardly excuses it nor does it make it acceptable. Anyway, about this passport rule, this is going to have a very clear impact on some people I have met here. At least two people I know intend to move out of Turkmenistan as a result of this rule about no longer being a dual Russian/Turkmen passport holder. It is something management is aware of as well and attempts are being made to place and accommodate people within reason. Valued employees are valued and if they go from being home-country Turkmenistan to home-country Russia at least we sort of draw at a corporate level. The real loser is Turkmenistan for marginalizing useful members of society and coercing them to leave.
Four weeks ago, I commented on report season, wherein Turkmenistan was universally getting some of the lowest marks. Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders, Economist Intelligence Unit, Transparency International, and probably several others I have missed have all conducted different surveys measuring different things using different methodologies. However, the common thread is that any study ranking freedom, rights, choice, etc is one in which Turkmenistan fares poorly. There was a U.N. report that came out late last year that was highly critical of some elements of the situation here. It is available for download here (and this is a direct link to a .doc file). It points out concerns with several aspects of society including discrimination against ethnic minorities and women in education and employment, poverty, concerns about worker rights, insufficient access to education, domestic abuse, human trafficking, and the list just goes on and on. I'm not sure what presence the U.N. has here, but for an anecdote, I remember seeing a U.N. plane on the tarmac at the Ashgabat airport back when I was going on days off in October. It was a small jet with large "UN" letters on the side.
Another way it is slowly closing in here is a rule about dual passport holders. There are many people here who hold dual Russian and Turkmen citizenship. However, by the end of this year, they will be required to give up one of those passports. It strikes me as another form of the Turkmenization of ethnic minorities that occurred during the rule of the previous president. There is particular animosity towards Russians, and while the historical reasons for why it exists are clear enough, that hardly excuses it nor does it make it acceptable. Anyway, about this passport rule, this is going to have a very clear impact on some people I have met here. At least two people I know intend to move out of Turkmenistan as a result of this rule about no longer being a dual Russian/Turkmen passport holder. It is something management is aware of as well and attempts are being made to place and accommodate people within reason. Valued employees are valued and if they go from being home-country Turkmenistan to home-country Russia at least we sort of draw at a corporate level. The real loser is Turkmenistan for marginalizing useful members of society and coercing them to leave.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
a dysfunctional electorate
Yesterday, I followed my frustration with the Republican primary to its roots with the voters themselves. It lacked eloquence and meandered a bit from the original point I thought I was going to make when I started writing. Looking for some better words, I found this series from last August in the New York Times asking various public figures what they would do if they were President. The words of Neil deGrrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist and science educator, put so well what I was trying to put forth yesterday:
The question, “If I were President I’d…” implies that if you swap out one leader, put in another, then all will be well with America—as though our leaders are the cause of all ailments.
That must be why we’ve created a tradition of rampant attacks on our politicians. Are they too conservative for you? Too liberal? Too religious? Too atheist? Too gay? Too anti-gay? Too rich? Too dumb? Too smart? Too ethnic? Too philanderous? Curious behavior, given that we elect 88% of Congress every two years.
A second tradition-in-progress is the expectation that everyone else in our culturally pluralistic land should hold exactly your own outlook, on all issues.
When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different to you. It’s a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths of the world that exist outside of whatever your belief system tells you.
One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York, Aug. 21, 2011
Obviously, the core issue is the one that lacks a cohesive answer. How do we educate and enlighten people? How do we get people to be scientifically literate? How do we teach people how to reason and make logical conclusions based on evidence? These are hard enough questions to address on their own, but are complicated by another layer of obfuscation for many people. How do we get people to want these things? To want to be scientifically literate and educated and logical? It's quite clear that many of the people who lack those things are quite content with that lack of knowledge.
The question, “If I were President I’d…” implies that if you swap out one leader, put in another, then all will be well with America—as though our leaders are the cause of all ailments.
That must be why we’ve created a tradition of rampant attacks on our politicians. Are they too conservative for you? Too liberal? Too religious? Too atheist? Too gay? Too anti-gay? Too rich? Too dumb? Too smart? Too ethnic? Too philanderous? Curious behavior, given that we elect 88% of Congress every two years.
A second tradition-in-progress is the expectation that everyone else in our culturally pluralistic land should hold exactly your own outlook, on all issues.
When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different to you. It’s a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths of the world that exist outside of whatever your belief system tells you.
One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York, Aug. 21, 2011
Obviously, the core issue is the one that lacks a cohesive answer. How do we educate and enlighten people? How do we get people to be scientifically literate? How do we teach people how to reason and make logical conclusions based on evidence? These are hard enough questions to address on their own, but are complicated by another layer of obfuscation for many people. How do we get people to want these things? To want to be scientifically literate and educated and logical? It's quite clear that many of the people who lack those things are quite content with that lack of knowledge.
a primary and the people
With Turkmenistan's presidential election now behind us and the country finally getting a chance to calm down from all the excitement, I can cast my eye upon the current American political landscape. Suffice to say, what I see is deeply dismaying. It might even be humorous were it not for the seriousness of what is at stake. My interest is obvious enough for while I do not live there at the moment (you got that IRS?), it is my homeland and I expect to live there again in the future.
Watching the Republican primary unfold from afar is both troubling and further reaffirms my abandonment of the Republican Party and political right a few years ago. (In may ways, many of the feelings I went through when I wrote that post two years ago are resurfacing again as another election cycle rolls around. It is fascinating to see how little has changed, both with myself and the system.) I am not certain if large swaths of the Republican party have fully embraced the irrelevancy of being right out of genuine belief or if they are simply cynically preying on the basest fears of the electorate. Either way, it is something I want no part of. While it is not the entire party that's gone astray, enough of it has and isn't being sufficiently called-out by more moderate members that it gives the air of tacit approval by them. The end result is a somewhat moderate candidate (in relative terms) besieged by a has-been former House Speaker and a man who lost his last election by 17 points. And yes, also Ron Paul, lest we never forget him.
Despite his foibles, Mitt Romney strikes me as a pragmatic person. To govern a relatively liberal state like Massachusetts as a conservative requires that pragmatism and mostly sound policy making trump partisanship. This has been the core appeal of Romney. He is moderate enough to be electable and he appeared to combine enough conservatism (fiscally so) and "family values" (whatever that means) to appeal to the primary voters. However, that's gone sideways now.
It is almost cringe-worthy to watch Romney attempt to shuffle to the right and proclaim that he is "severely conservative" in his attempts to thwart first Gingrich and now Santorum. He's being pushed off his talking points by social issues in a country where the economy is always paramount. Of course, he isn't helping himself with his inability to relate to those of us who do not treat ~350K in speaking fees as "not very much". At least W. was able to play up the regular guy role despite being the son of a President and grandson of a U.S. Senator by clearing brush at his ranch. Power tools Mitt. Use them. He's so disconnected from most people that I half-expect working in an office with him is like working with Gob in Arrested Development.
Santorum's staying power in this primary speaks to something that goes beyond him as a candidate. It is something far deeper about the American populace and not about the leadership and the candidates. Fundamentally, there is a problem with the people. If a man who says such bizarre things can have this much appeal to the country, and this much popular support, what does that say about the American people? Rick Santorum is practically the dream candidate for the Democratic Party. He lost his last Senate re-election by a large margin in a swing-state, has a serious internet search term problem, has a strange and very public obsession with your sex life, and again, he just says crazy stuff. And not Joe Biden crazy, but actual crazy crazy. And yet he could win the Republican nomination and be the next President of the United States. He has a lot going against him, but the fact that he's even making it close is what is troubling. There is a saying that in democracy we don't get the leadership we need, but instead get the leadership we deserve. Apparently, a lot of people deserve Rick Santorum as their leader.
Like always, this election will hinge on the economy more than anything else. Remember 2004 and how generally unpopular Bush was for dragging things along in Afghanistan and then Iraq and his general level of Bush-ness? But the economy was recovering (sort of) and that's what carried his reelection. This year will be similar. If the economy is doing well, Obama will be reelected. If not, he's looking at much slimmer odds. Meanwhile, the Republicans have a semi-legitimate chance of nominating a crazy person. A crazy person who could be President, not because he is a great or in any way capable of leading, but because people actually think his craziness has merit.
It's undoubtedly a quote that will haunt me in my future political career 28 years from now, but the American people are kind of stupid. The frequency with which people vote against their own best interests is staggering. Of course leadership will not represent you when they never had your best interests in mind. We should not be surprised this is what happens when so many people are low-information voters and even misinformation voters. The question becomes not what is wrong with our leadership, but what is wrong with our people?
Watching the Republican primary unfold from afar is both troubling and further reaffirms my abandonment of the Republican Party and political right a few years ago. (In may ways, many of the feelings I went through when I wrote that post two years ago are resurfacing again as another election cycle rolls around. It is fascinating to see how little has changed, both with myself and the system.) I am not certain if large swaths of the Republican party have fully embraced the irrelevancy of being right out of genuine belief or if they are simply cynically preying on the basest fears of the electorate. Either way, it is something I want no part of. While it is not the entire party that's gone astray, enough of it has and isn't being sufficiently called-out by more moderate members that it gives the air of tacit approval by them. The end result is a somewhat moderate candidate (in relative terms) besieged by a has-been former House Speaker and a man who lost his last election by 17 points. And yes, also Ron Paul, lest we never forget him.
Despite his foibles, Mitt Romney strikes me as a pragmatic person. To govern a relatively liberal state like Massachusetts as a conservative requires that pragmatism and mostly sound policy making trump partisanship. This has been the core appeal of Romney. He is moderate enough to be electable and he appeared to combine enough conservatism (fiscally so) and "family values" (whatever that means) to appeal to the primary voters. However, that's gone sideways now.
It is almost cringe-worthy to watch Romney attempt to shuffle to the right and proclaim that he is "severely conservative" in his attempts to thwart first Gingrich and now Santorum. He's being pushed off his talking points by social issues in a country where the economy is always paramount. Of course, he isn't helping himself with his inability to relate to those of us who do not treat ~350K in speaking fees as "not very much". At least W. was able to play up the regular guy role despite being the son of a President and grandson of a U.S. Senator by clearing brush at his ranch. Power tools Mitt. Use them. He's so disconnected from most people that I half-expect working in an office with him is like working with Gob in Arrested Development.
Santorum's staying power in this primary speaks to something that goes beyond him as a candidate. It is something far deeper about the American populace and not about the leadership and the candidates. Fundamentally, there is a problem with the people. If a man who says such bizarre things can have this much appeal to the country, and this much popular support, what does that say about the American people? Rick Santorum is practically the dream candidate for the Democratic Party. He lost his last Senate re-election by a large margin in a swing-state, has a serious internet search term problem, has a strange and very public obsession with your sex life, and again, he just says crazy stuff. And not Joe Biden crazy, but actual crazy crazy. And yet he could win the Republican nomination and be the next President of the United States. He has a lot going against him, but the fact that he's even making it close is what is troubling. There is a saying that in democracy we don't get the leadership we need, but instead get the leadership we deserve. Apparently, a lot of people deserve Rick Santorum as their leader.
Like always, this election will hinge on the economy more than anything else. Remember 2004 and how generally unpopular Bush was for dragging things along in Afghanistan and then Iraq and his general level of Bush-ness? But the economy was recovering (sort of) and that's what carried his reelection. This year will be similar. If the economy is doing well, Obama will be reelected. If not, he's looking at much slimmer odds. Meanwhile, the Republicans have a semi-legitimate chance of nominating a crazy person. A crazy person who could be President, not because he is a great or in any way capable of leading, but because people actually think his craziness has merit.
It's undoubtedly a quote that will haunt me in my future political career 28 years from now, but the American people are kind of stupid. The frequency with which people vote against their own best interests is staggering. Of course leadership will not represent you when they never had your best interests in mind. We should not be surprised this is what happens when so many people are low-information voters and even misinformation voters. The question becomes not what is wrong with our leadership, but what is wrong with our people?
Friday, February 24, 2012
being right is irrelevant
I have been fiddling with this idea for nearly three months now. I know this because of the date on the draft version of this entry. Seeing Jack's entry on what he learned while working at LinkedIn reminded me I had this post that needed to be finished. Of course, it's been more than a month since that entry but I was on days off then busy at work and now we're finally here.
Before I go any further, if you took the time to read Jack's post, you might be wondering how I'm connecting his ideas with the idea of rightness being irrelevant. He certainly doesn't say that being right is irrelevant, nor was that the point of his entry. However, very briefly, his points on influence winning and relationships mattering are aspects of my own on the irrelevancy of being right. The connections, if not clear, will become so by the end of this post. For now, a brief detour.
I was good at school. I am a generally sharp guy (despite the many grammatical errors in my posts and my absurd use of parentheses), interested in learning, and an unusually good test taker. For many years I thrived on being right because that's what correlated with success in school. As a young child, answers are almost always either right or wrong. It's not so much about interpretation and justification. Facts are facts and that's how it works. It is particularly true in math and science where right and wrong are very cut and dry. Along with needing to be right, I also hated being wrong. Wrong answers meant a failure, maybe not in a grade sense, but in the stark contrast of rightness and wrongness, being wrong was a failure. In that miniature world of school, I was an excellent student. Within those confines, that's how and why rightness came to mean much to me.
My story is hardly unique and in fact probably rather pedestrian. When you are very young, right and wrong hold a lot of meaning. However, we do not remain children forever nor do we get to sty in school, at least one of clear cut facts, forever either. It still matters to me to be "right" but I have come to realize how limited the utility of rightness actually is in this world. On it's own, rightness will get you nowhere.
I am not pitching some moral relativism where all truths about the world are up for grabs (though that is arguably in play), but I am saying that the stark world of right and wrong that exists when you are a child must fade away as an adult. The "real" world is not about rightness and wrongness. It is about what you can convince people of and that is often how right and wrong end up being defined. In this way, it is about how you can influence people and how you can forge and build relationships with people/groups/super PACS/etc to convince others that you are "right". Your rightness might be political and how you are the best candidate or why someone should invest in your company or why someone should buy your product or why the jury should find you not guilty on all counts. Regardless of the issue, it's not about whether you are "right" or not in a truthful and objective sense because without context that term means nothing. It is about whether you can convince the requisite number of people that you are worth agreeing with.
Need an example? We can reach into something incredibly topical that is surprisingly not about the Republican primary, or at least not directly about the primary. The Utah state House has passed a bill that would prohibit schools that teach sex education from teaching about contraception. I'd like to think that the following is not how this bill came to be viewed as a good idea:
Legislator #1: "How can we stop kids from having sex?"
Legislator #2: "Hold on, I've got an idea. We'll tell them ... not to."
Legislator #1: "Brilliant! This can't possibly fail (you know, because it worked so well in Texas)."
Sigh. This is obviously a hot-button topic and politically loaded so it is perhaps odd to use as an example of the irrelevancy of rightness. Still, I will soldier ahead because in theory legislation has purpose. I assume the purpose of this legislation is to reduce teen sex, teen pregnancy, and the spread of STDs. Of course, it doubles as an attempt to promote a certain type of moral agenda and I won't pretend to be unaware of that fact. That secondary purpose is fine in a sense, because the primary goal should be the reduction in teen pregnancy and STDs and the general improvement in public health. Of course, they really should look to Texas to see if abstinence-only sex education is effective at improving public health. It is not. As much as there is a "right" answer from a public policy perspective, it is clear that abstinence-only sex ed is not the most effective course. However, that rightness is not relevant to the advancement of the bill as it gets closer to being law. The issues and the facts and the actual answers have been subverted and the issue is now one of morality instead of sound public policy. Influence won out over being right.
If you want an example that is not politically charged, take a look at the idea that being in the cold or out in the rain can cause you to become sick. This is on my mind since I have had this discussion twice this week. I find it oddly curious that I need to explain to otherwise educated people how the common cold or flu is caused by a virus and not some reaction to being in cold weather or having wet hair. I feel like this is basic science and the right and wrong answers are very clear cut. (I am aware that enough exposure to the cold can reduce your body's temperature and thus weaken your immune system, but that is not the point under debate.) However, as basic as it is, my "rightness" on this topic take a back seat to the sources people muck-up correlation and causation and are more willing to be believe the words of their mothers than my own. I have to win people over and influence them not with the blunt facts and railing about their ignorance, but instead with building up a relationship and trust. Can my influence and persuasion win out? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the facts alone and being "right" by itself are never enough.
I do not celebrate this irrelevancy of rightness. In fact, it is quite frustrating and disappointing to see so many false facts promulgated in society, media, culture, etc. Truth should not be marginalized, but people do not necessarily believe facts simply because they are true. People more often believe facts that fit with their world view, life philosophy, religion, or whatever set of beliefs they claim to be important to them. Packaging helps too and successfully influencing people often depends as much on style as it does on substance. In this way, being right is irrelevant if you cannot find a way to educate people and win them over, but if you have no relationship with them, they have little reason to listen. And if they will not listen, you cannot influence them.
Before I go any further, if you took the time to read Jack's post, you might be wondering how I'm connecting his ideas with the idea of rightness being irrelevant. He certainly doesn't say that being right is irrelevant, nor was that the point of his entry. However, very briefly, his points on influence winning and relationships mattering are aspects of my own on the irrelevancy of being right. The connections, if not clear, will become so by the end of this post. For now, a brief detour.
I was good at school. I am a generally sharp guy (despite the many grammatical errors in my posts and my absurd use of parentheses), interested in learning, and an unusually good test taker. For many years I thrived on being right because that's what correlated with success in school. As a young child, answers are almost always either right or wrong. It's not so much about interpretation and justification. Facts are facts and that's how it works. It is particularly true in math and science where right and wrong are very cut and dry. Along with needing to be right, I also hated being wrong. Wrong answers meant a failure, maybe not in a grade sense, but in the stark contrast of rightness and wrongness, being wrong was a failure. In that miniature world of school, I was an excellent student. Within those confines, that's how and why rightness came to mean much to me.
My story is hardly unique and in fact probably rather pedestrian. When you are very young, right and wrong hold a lot of meaning. However, we do not remain children forever nor do we get to sty in school, at least one of clear cut facts, forever either. It still matters to me to be "right" but I have come to realize how limited the utility of rightness actually is in this world. On it's own, rightness will get you nowhere.
I am not pitching some moral relativism where all truths about the world are up for grabs (though that is arguably in play), but I am saying that the stark world of right and wrong that exists when you are a child must fade away as an adult. The "real" world is not about rightness and wrongness. It is about what you can convince people of and that is often how right and wrong end up being defined. In this way, it is about how you can influence people and how you can forge and build relationships with people/groups/super PACS/etc to convince others that you are "right". Your rightness might be political and how you are the best candidate or why someone should invest in your company or why someone should buy your product or why the jury should find you not guilty on all counts. Regardless of the issue, it's not about whether you are "right" or not in a truthful and objective sense because without context that term means nothing. It is about whether you can convince the requisite number of people that you are worth agreeing with.
Need an example? We can reach into something incredibly topical that is surprisingly not about the Republican primary, or at least not directly about the primary. The Utah state House has passed a bill that would prohibit schools that teach sex education from teaching about contraception. I'd like to think that the following is not how this bill came to be viewed as a good idea:
Legislator #1: "How can we stop kids from having sex?"
Legislator #2: "Hold on, I've got an idea. We'll tell them ... not to."
Legislator #1: "Brilliant! This can't possibly fail (you know, because it worked so well in Texas)."
Sigh. This is obviously a hot-button topic and politically loaded so it is perhaps odd to use as an example of the irrelevancy of rightness. Still, I will soldier ahead because in theory legislation has purpose. I assume the purpose of this legislation is to reduce teen sex, teen pregnancy, and the spread of STDs. Of course, it doubles as an attempt to promote a certain type of moral agenda and I won't pretend to be unaware of that fact. That secondary purpose is fine in a sense, because the primary goal should be the reduction in teen pregnancy and STDs and the general improvement in public health. Of course, they really should look to Texas to see if abstinence-only sex education is effective at improving public health. It is not. As much as there is a "right" answer from a public policy perspective, it is clear that abstinence-only sex ed is not the most effective course. However, that rightness is not relevant to the advancement of the bill as it gets closer to being law. The issues and the facts and the actual answers have been subverted and the issue is now one of morality instead of sound public policy. Influence won out over being right.
If you want an example that is not politically charged, take a look at the idea that being in the cold or out in the rain can cause you to become sick. This is on my mind since I have had this discussion twice this week. I find it oddly curious that I need to explain to otherwise educated people how the common cold or flu is caused by a virus and not some reaction to being in cold weather or having wet hair. I feel like this is basic science and the right and wrong answers are very clear cut. (I am aware that enough exposure to the cold can reduce your body's temperature and thus weaken your immune system, but that is not the point under debate.) However, as basic as it is, my "rightness" on this topic take a back seat to the sources people muck-up correlation and causation and are more willing to be believe the words of their mothers than my own. I have to win people over and influence them not with the blunt facts and railing about their ignorance, but instead with building up a relationship and trust. Can my influence and persuasion win out? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the facts alone and being "right" by itself are never enough.
I do not celebrate this irrelevancy of rightness. In fact, it is quite frustrating and disappointing to see so many false facts promulgated in society, media, culture, etc. Truth should not be marginalized, but people do not necessarily believe facts simply because they are true. People more often believe facts that fit with their world view, life philosophy, religion, or whatever set of beliefs they claim to be important to them. Packaging helps too and successfully influencing people often depends as much on style as it does on substance. In this way, being right is irrelevant if you cannot find a way to educate people and win them over, but if you have no relationship with them, they have little reason to listen. And if they will not listen, you cannot influence them.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: what a nail biter
Reminiscent of the 2000 U.S. presidential election with recounts and hanging chads, this past Sunday's presidential election in Turkmenistan was a true nail biter. However, in the end, the incumbent president won his bid for re-election against a field of spirited opponents. Voters were no doubt swayed by his diplomatic leadership for the past five years and powerful oratory skills that led some to call the president a Turkmen Stephen Douglas. The president was able to carry the razor thin election against his next closest opponent by the narrowest of margins: 97% to 1.2%. (Sorry, the 82% guess is not close enough to win the prize.)
It is clear that the president was able to rally not just his base, but also the base of everyone else as voters turned up in droves to the tune of a 97% turnout. It is possible that some "corrections" had to be made to the count to compensate for the unusually cold weather that may have encouraged some to stay at home. And the fraud. The massive, massive fraud.
I view the 97% turnout with more suspicion than the 97% vote share for the president. This is based on what I perceived to be the challenges of being able to vote and just what it means for turnout to be at 97%. Let's start with the latter. A 97% turnout rate means only about 1 in 33 eligible voters did not vote. With suffrage for all citizens 18 and older, that's a large base of eligible voters, even in a country of only 5 million. Why someone might not vote could be for a myriad of reasons which we'll get to in a moment, but for every single person who does not vote, it means 32 other people must vote. That's a very high bar to clear. So, what might be the challenges to getting 32 out of 33 people to vote? As already mentioned, the weather was quite cold on Sunday so perhaps many sick or elderly stayed at home. Some people had to work (even on a Sunday) and might not have had reasonable time or access to vote, especially in my industry if they were in the field or offshore. Voting also required your domestic passport which is like a national ID card. However, it needed to show your "home" address but if you're in the middle of a move like one person I spoke with, then you need to turn your passport into the authorities so your new address can be registered. This of course then leaves you without the passport and no way to vote. Others said you needed your ID to match your current address and since many engineers here are from other parts of the country where they maintain a permanent address, they could not vote while here. Again, these are perhaps challenges that disproportionately face people I work with given their professions and mobility, but they are still obstacles towards a 97% turnout. Finally, the most compelling and likely reason for why turnout was not at 97% is why bother voting if you already know the outcome. Every single person I spoke with, whether they planned to vote or not, knew what the outcome of the election would be. That's surely one of the most compelling disincentives for voting.
As to the matter of the president winning 97% of the vote, that too raises some eyebrows, though far less than you might suspect at first glance. As compared to the turnout figure, I think it's more likely that the actual vote share was closer to 97% than the actual turnout was to 97%. Of course, I don't think either one was all that close to 97%, but there is a distinction to be made. Why might the percentage of votes be closer? Simply put, who else is there to vote for? Those were essentially the words from one person I spoke with. People did not know the other seven candidates, certainly not on a national level. The Commonwealth of Independent States had some voting monitors and they declared that the election was within democratic norms and there were only minor irregularities that would have had little impact on results. Of course minor irregularities would have little impact on results. That's because they pale in comparison to the massive irregularities endemic to the entire process. Of course, CIS has a history of dubious election monitoring and their concept of a democratic norm was likely crafted during the Soviet era. Still, the real driver for any sort of "irregularities" was not the way voting was conducted on election day. I am reasonably confident that the majority of people who wanted to vote and had ID were able to vote. What was irregular was the nature of the entire election cycle, not merely voting day. Yes, there were seven other candidates and there were some posters up, but none of them had anywhere near the level of exposure that the president had. No one else is on TV for several hours a day or on the front page of the newspaper every single day. (I'm almost surprised there isn't a website like this one for the president.) There were no debates and there was no campaigning. In fact, I saw more sophisticated campaigns for student body office in college than I did here. If you wanted information, you had to seek it out, but that's not easy when there are so few open sources. Thus, when it comes time to vote and it is one name you recognize and seven you know nothing about, either you will leave it blank (though someone else may later fill it in for you) or you will pick the name you know.
In the end, there's certainly no surprise with the results. The only bet was just how much of the vote the president would garner.
It is clear that the president was able to rally not just his base, but also the base of everyone else as voters turned up in droves to the tune of a 97% turnout. It is possible that some "corrections" had to be made to the count to compensate for the unusually cold weather that may have encouraged some to stay at home. And the fraud. The massive, massive fraud.
I view the 97% turnout with more suspicion than the 97% vote share for the president. This is based on what I perceived to be the challenges of being able to vote and just what it means for turnout to be at 97%. Let's start with the latter. A 97% turnout rate means only about 1 in 33 eligible voters did not vote. With suffrage for all citizens 18 and older, that's a large base of eligible voters, even in a country of only 5 million. Why someone might not vote could be for a myriad of reasons which we'll get to in a moment, but for every single person who does not vote, it means 32 other people must vote. That's a very high bar to clear. So, what might be the challenges to getting 32 out of 33 people to vote? As already mentioned, the weather was quite cold on Sunday so perhaps many sick or elderly stayed at home. Some people had to work (even on a Sunday) and might not have had reasonable time or access to vote, especially in my industry if they were in the field or offshore. Voting also required your domestic passport which is like a national ID card. However, it needed to show your "home" address but if you're in the middle of a move like one person I spoke with, then you need to turn your passport into the authorities so your new address can be registered. This of course then leaves you without the passport and no way to vote. Others said you needed your ID to match your current address and since many engineers here are from other parts of the country where they maintain a permanent address, they could not vote while here. Again, these are perhaps challenges that disproportionately face people I work with given their professions and mobility, but they are still obstacles towards a 97% turnout. Finally, the most compelling and likely reason for why turnout was not at 97% is why bother voting if you already know the outcome. Every single person I spoke with, whether they planned to vote or not, knew what the outcome of the election would be. That's surely one of the most compelling disincentives for voting.
As to the matter of the president winning 97% of the vote, that too raises some eyebrows, though far less than you might suspect at first glance. As compared to the turnout figure, I think it's more likely that the actual vote share was closer to 97% than the actual turnout was to 97%. Of course, I don't think either one was all that close to 97%, but there is a distinction to be made. Why might the percentage of votes be closer? Simply put, who else is there to vote for? Those were essentially the words from one person I spoke with. People did not know the other seven candidates, certainly not on a national level. The Commonwealth of Independent States had some voting monitors and they declared that the election was within democratic norms and there were only minor irregularities that would have had little impact on results. Of course minor irregularities would have little impact on results. That's because they pale in comparison to the massive irregularities endemic to the entire process. Of course, CIS has a history of dubious election monitoring and their concept of a democratic norm was likely crafted during the Soviet era. Still, the real driver for any sort of "irregularities" was not the way voting was conducted on election day. I am reasonably confident that the majority of people who wanted to vote and had ID were able to vote. What was irregular was the nature of the entire election cycle, not merely voting day. Yes, there were seven other candidates and there were some posters up, but none of them had anywhere near the level of exposure that the president had. No one else is on TV for several hours a day or on the front page of the newspaper every single day. (I'm almost surprised there isn't a website like this one for the president.) There were no debates and there was no campaigning. In fact, I saw more sophisticated campaigns for student body office in college than I did here. If you wanted information, you had to seek it out, but that's not easy when there are so few open sources. Thus, when it comes time to vote and it is one name you recognize and seven you know nothing about, either you will leave it blank (though someone else may later fill it in for you) or you will pick the name you know.
In the end, there's certainly no surprise with the results. The only bet was just how much of the vote the president would garner.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
election day!
Today was election day in Turkmenistan. For only the second time since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the people of Turkmenistan had an opportunity to "choose" their next President. Of course it's already in the bag. It was never even out of the bag. In speaking with people, or trying to speak with people, I've come to realize that many people here are reluctant to discuss politics. This is hardly surprising, though I had hoped people would be more forthcoming since I am clearly not a Kazakh spy.
While perusing for additional articles, I was mildly pleased to see news of the election had made it to the Washington Post. Further information can be found from the Financial Times and you can even see who all the other candidates are courtesy of Radio Free Europe. After learning about the stiff opposition the current President will face, the next most interesting thing about the Radio Free article was the quote from the Commonwealth of Independent States group stating that the election had "equal opportunities" for all candidates. Yes, "equal". That's only slightly more of an exaggeration than when that one network calls itself "fair & balanced".
While perusing for additional articles, I was mildly pleased to see news of the election had made it to the Washington Post. Further information can be found from the Financial Times and you can even see who all the other candidates are courtesy of Radio Free Europe. After learning about the stiff opposition the current President will face, the next most interesting thing about the Radio Free article was the quote from the Commonwealth of Independent States group stating that the election had "equal opportunities" for all candidates. Yes, "equal". That's only slightly more of an exaggeration than when that one network calls itself "fair & balanced".
Friday, February 10, 2012
2 more days!
At work this morning, all the expats received an e-mail instructing us to keep a low profile for the next several days until Sunday's election had passed and the outcome was clear (as if we didn't already know how it will go). Of course, we already keep a low-profile. While we are technically allowed to go into town and eat at restaurants and be out of the camp, it was recommended that everyone only go out for work-related business. It's not an unreasonable request, particularly since there's no scenario in which agitating about the election would result in anything positive. Interestingly enough, three days ago there was a surprise visa registration check at the camp after dinner on Tuesday. A couple immigration officers showed up around 20:00 and all the expats had to come back to the office and I suppose demonstrate that we were actually there (as opposed to somewhere else I assume) and had our passports with valid visas.
Getting back to the election, this recent eurasianet.org piece makes an interesting assertion about the election. It suggests that the president is using the election and his "opponents" as a way to gauge which ideas are supported (or not) and what his own level of popularity (or lack thereof) is like. When the voting is done, I suspect there will be two very critical tallies that are determined, though only one will be released for general consumption. The first is the officially released figure that the people here, that the world hears, and that if it's at 82% for the president, then someone "wins" a trip to Turkmenistan. The second is the actual count. The one that lacks all the fuzzing, adjustments, and rounding that will occur as votes are counted, added, collated, and rolled up from city to province to state to the capital. It's quite possible that this figure of the true vote cannot be known depending on how many separate officials make their various "corrections" along the way.
In continuing to chat-up people about the election, while many said they would vote, few seemed to believe in the true legitimacy of the process. I wonder if that will show up in the unofficial numbers.
Getting back to the election, this recent eurasianet.org piece makes an interesting assertion about the election. It suggests that the president is using the election and his "opponents" as a way to gauge which ideas are supported (or not) and what his own level of popularity (or lack thereof) is like. When the voting is done, I suspect there will be two very critical tallies that are determined, though only one will be released for general consumption. The first is the officially released figure that the people here, that the world hears, and that if it's at 82% for the president, then someone "wins" a trip to Turkmenistan. The second is the actual count. The one that lacks all the fuzzing, adjustments, and rounding that will occur as votes are counted, added, collated, and rolled up from city to province to state to the capital. It's quite possible that this figure of the true vote cannot be known depending on how many separate officials make their various "corrections" along the way.
In continuing to chat-up people about the election, while many said they would vote, few seemed to believe in the true legitimacy of the process. I wonder if that will show up in the unofficial numbers.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
tuesdays in turkmenistan: election soon
This coming Sunday's election fascinates me. It's a sort of firsthand look at how democracy functions (or doesn't) in another part of the world. The particular aspects that are most compelling are whether the people here believe in the process. It's one thing for Americans to feel jaded about the democratic process with the influence of money that lobbyists and Super PACs bring, but it's something else entirely when this is just the second post-Soviet era presidential election. Not only does the country lack a tradition of democracy and regular elections, it also lacks free press and multiple political parties. Indeed, all eight of the official candidates are from the incumbent's party. One cannot help but believe that they are carefully chosen straw men to give the election the outward appearance of legitimacy.
I have been trying to chat up anyone I can about the subject, both local and expatriate employees. Inevitably, I end up talking with people who are disproportionately younger and more educated than the average Turkmen voter. Still, the sentiment amongst people I have spoken with is that the election is largely for show. It has multiple candidates, posters, and maybe even whistle-stop tours during this final week. However, it has not exactly inspired the electorate into a frenzy of patriotism and fervor for the democratic process.
One interesting aspect that is contrary to at least American elections is that if this is a fairly administered election, young people might vote at higher rates than older people. This is only plausible if the election is fully open. However, the polls might show near 100% turnout along with some zombies, erm, recently deceased also managing to cast ballots. It's possible, despite the people I have spoken with, that the youth might believe more in the process and want to affect change. Further, older people here do not have the same history of being able to vote like their American counterparts who turn out in droves. Of course, the youth might also be the most cynical about the process given their relative education and exposure to the rest of the world.
I will continue to chat people up about the election including afterwards once results are out. I am curious to know if people voted, who they voted for (if they are comfortable sharing that), what the polls were like, did they feel like their vote was able to be cast secretly, what did it take to register to vote, how efficiently run were the polls (though I already know the answer to this one based on how efficient everything else is), etc. If you're interested in the process, what else should I ply people for?
Jokingly, I have suggested that the expats start a pool on what percentage of the vote the President will capture in what we largely assume will be his inevitable reelection. Will it be a massive landslide (>90%) that demonstrates the unity of the country or will it be a more "modest" victory (60-70%) to give the election an air of legitimacy to outsiders? Anyone care to venture forth with a guess?
I have been trying to chat up anyone I can about the subject, both local and expatriate employees. Inevitably, I end up talking with people who are disproportionately younger and more educated than the average Turkmen voter. Still, the sentiment amongst people I have spoken with is that the election is largely for show. It has multiple candidates, posters, and maybe even whistle-stop tours during this final week. However, it has not exactly inspired the electorate into a frenzy of patriotism and fervor for the democratic process.
One interesting aspect that is contrary to at least American elections is that if this is a fairly administered election, young people might vote at higher rates than older people. This is only plausible if the election is fully open. However, the polls might show near 100% turnout along with some zombies, erm, recently deceased also managing to cast ballots. It's possible, despite the people I have spoken with, that the youth might believe more in the process and want to affect change. Further, older people here do not have the same history of being able to vote like their American counterparts who turn out in droves. Of course, the youth might also be the most cynical about the process given their relative education and exposure to the rest of the world.
I will continue to chat people up about the election including afterwards once results are out. I am curious to know if people voted, who they voted for (if they are comfortable sharing that), what the polls were like, did they feel like their vote was able to be cast secretly, what did it take to register to vote, how efficiently run were the polls (though I already know the answer to this one based on how efficient everything else is), etc. If you're interested in the process, what else should I ply people for?
Jokingly, I have suggested that the expats start a pool on what percentage of the vote the President will capture in what we largely assume will be his inevitable reelection. Will it be a massive landslide (>90%) that demonstrates the unity of the country or will it be a more "modest" victory (60-70%) to give the election an air of legitimacy to outsiders? Anyone care to venture forth with a guess?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)