Democratic Dictatorship

A good starting point is to explain how a dictatorship can transform into a democracy.  Today democracy is a very popular political concept within states, in fact it is so popular that states are today giving lectures to their partners in particular regions, with each providing their analysis of how to to implement democracy in another country. Zimbabwe is one of the democratic countries whereby there are elections, freedom of choice and speech, meeting the criteria and values required in any democratic state. However, the country has been exploited for years and deprived from development. Having gained its independence in 1980, it  appointed  Robert Mugabe as leader of the country. As a result Mugabe was rewarded because his main endeavour was for for the  country’s democracy, plus his firm stance against white rule, and wanting his own people to have a say in political process. However probably the chair must be very comfortable to leave. The position today is that he has been in power for 31 years and has forgotten all his effort during the liberation of the country. However being in power for 31 years is a proof of his unfairness. Why? Well, due to the fact that the battle was done for one vote and, one person, as it is unjust not to give people a political choice. Here history repeats itself and today he himself keeps the control of country intimidate opponents and use military and other institutions to run his own election campaign and to passivate other ideologies. Democracy requires the participation of people but if it is a dictatorship type of rule, it then involves includes public institutions rather than people. Today Egypt and Libya has the same situation whereby it is the people who have started to awake and take action in favour of democracy. The recent uprising in  Egypt and Libya have  paved the way  for widescale  reforms welfare and modernisation, and rightfully so. Thus I think we should all wake and take positive action if we would like to see and implement change.


                                                                                   BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                                                        

Darnolf S. Laakso. L, 2003, Twenty years of independence in Zimbabwe : from liberation to authoritarianism, Palgrave Macmillan, 

Latham. B, 2011, Bloomberg : Zimbabwe's Mugabe to Call Early Elections, Deploy Military Available from : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/mugabe-said-to-halt-constitution-talks-deploy-military-for-early-election.html  Accessed: 15.02.2011

Public Diplomacy: Hopes for the Future of the Practice

Looking at structure the international system we immediately note that it is composed of states, and that these states compete with each other for their interests, often resorting to war to preserve or further them.
However world politics is undergoing profound changes; first of all states are becoming increasingly interdependent, as we can see, for instance, from the fact that global trading in soaring. Secondly there is the consolidation of a global public opinion, in fact, as information is expanding and it crosses boarders with unimaginable speed, citizens have been transformed into independent observer and often active participants of international relations (Bolewski, 2007, 70). Thirdly states increasingly recognize they can better further their interests at the international level with soft power rather than hard power (Nye, 2004, 1).
This changes bestowed public diplomacy a central role in the relations among states.
However there is a theoretical contention based on practice, events and facts, among academics whether or not public diplomacy is propaganda.
On the one hand it is true that public diplomacy is a strategic communication based on rhetoric, aimed at persuading the public and shaping their perception.
However it is important to define the scope and administration of public diplomacy (Guth,2008, 309).
In fact if we do not operate a distinction based on the scope and administration, we can end up concluding that all kind of information is propaganda.
Leaving the debate over public diplomacy and propaganda, I want to highlight some aspects of what has been defined the “new public diplomacy” (Melissen, 2005), which are probably, hopefully, departing public diplomacy from propaganda.
Melissen contends that public diplomacy is no longer about spreading governmental information to foreign publics, but its about building relationships (Fitzpatrick, 2007, 188).
Melissn’s argument is supported by three main points.
Firstly there is the fact that it is becoming increasingly recognized that public diplomacy must be a two-way road, which involves listening as well as speaking (Nye, 2004, 111). As a consequence of this, cultural exchanges are now part of the practice of public diplomacy. Those allow recipient countries and guest visitors to meet and know other culture, so promoting understanding among them.
Secondly there is the fact that public affairs (governmental communication at home) and public diplomacy (governmental communication abroad) are increasingly merging together, as the information dispensed to domestic audiences quickly reaches foreign ones, and vice versa (Melissen, 2005, 9). This acts as a kind of check and balance on the communication governments dispatch to the public, as it can be more easily verified by home or foreign publics, according to the situation. If the government of a country is propagandizing a “broken product” abroad, the domestic public of that country can reveal the lie, and the same in the opposite situation. Obviously this must involve media free of governmental control; in fact where the media are not free this check and balance function cannot operate, but can instead serve the interests of the government, as it is the case of China which holds strong control over what information goes out and comes in the country.
Thirdly there is the fact that non-governmental organizations are becoming part of the game of public diplomacy, as they do have a role in promoting a country’s image to foreign public (Fitzpatrick, 2007, 198). This becomes clear when looking for instance at business companies’ affiliates abroad. China’s business companies offer a good example of how non-governmental actors shape foreign perception of a country in good or in bad. The BBC2 documentary “the Chinese are coming” (BBC1, 2011) shows the different perception African people have on China according to whether Chinese business firms benefit or disadvantage their life.

Overall it can be argued that public diplomacy practices are evolving, as they now include new actors and new purposes.
As the history of public diplomacy has often proved the linkage between public diplomacy and propaganda, especially during the Cold War and in the last Iraq War, hopefully the “new public diplomacy” can redeem public diplomacy’s name and improve its practice, departing it from propaganda.

Bibliography

BBC2, 2011, “The Chinese are Coming”, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ykxg9.

Bolewski W., 2007, “Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations”, Springer, Heidelberg.

Fitzpatrick K.R., 2007, “Advancing the New Public Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective” in The Hague Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 187-211.


Guth D. W., 2008, “ Black, White and Shades of Grey: The Sixty-Year Debate Over Propaganda Versus Public Diplomacy”, in Journal of Promotion Management, Rotledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Melissen J., 2005, “Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy”, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael, http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2005/20050500_cdsp_paper_diplomacy_2_melissen.pdf.

Nye J.S., 2004, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”, Public Affairs, New York.