Can the democratic spring spread to Russia?

Whilst much of Western Europe has been focused on the European Union Summit, in the East, democracy is stirring.

In Russia, after some years of retreating from democracy, - with the curtailment of a free press and the weakening of the rule of law - something quite incredible is happening.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (former President and likely to be next President), once lauded, has been jeered at in public events - something unthinkable, even a few months ago. The recent Parliamentary Elections, are widely regarded to have been fixed in favour of the ruling regime.

Now there are demonstration on the streets, in major city across Russia. Mr Putin faces the first real challenge to his rule.

I studied my postgraduate degree in Russian politics - straight after the failed coup in 1991 against Gorbachev. At the time many hoped that with Boris Yeltsin, real democracy was coming to Russia, to displace the totalitarian Soviet Socialist Republic. Sadly, the political forces against liberalisation were immense: the failures of Yeltsin and the corruption of the old Communist Party elite, led to the KGB (now known as the FSB) gradually reasserting control - through Putin's de facto coup d'etat against Yeltsin in December 1999.

Could the recent overthrowal of tyrants across the Middle East be the catalyst for Russian democracy? Can it finally be the end of Kremlin authoritarianism? Let us hope so: one thing is certain. The Russian people face very difficult times ahead.

P.S. You can read more here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8948495/Russia-election-protests-tens-of-thousands-gather-for-biggest-demonstration-since-fall-of-USSR.html

Opening the Freedom Zone: Social Media and the Riots

This morning, I opened the official fringe of Conservative Party conference: The Freedom Zone, hosted by the excellent Freedom Association.

On a panel with Mark Wallace, Sam Bowman, and Christian May, I spoke about the importance of a free social media - however bad the riots this summer may have been.

However bad the riots were, I am deeply uneasy about the Police restricting Blackberry messenger and other social media.

In August, the Government hinted that they would “look to ban people from major social networks” if they were suspected of inciting violence online. They were under immense pressure to do this. But it is a slippery slope. In fact, Chinese state media welcomed the news, and agreed that censoring the Internet was a “positive new attitude” that would “help appease quarrels between East and West”. Interestingly, Mubarak’s last tactic in the Arab Spring was to shut down the Egyptian Internet; the Syrian Government is currently doing the same, as it tries to choke off any news that is hostile to Bashar al-Assad; and Robert Mugabe is trying to ban Blackberries from Zimbabwe.

Fundamentally, I believe in a free Social Media, because...
- Social media is a measure of our freedom. Just as The Economist uses the price of a MacDonald Big Mac to measure a country's prosperity, so too, the level of a country's democracy could be determined by the level of its Blackberry usage. During the Arab Spring, one of the first actions by Middle Eastern autocracies was to ban Blackberries, because the regimes could not access user's details such as messaging and other data.

- We can be tough on crime, without being totalitarian. Now before I go on, I just want to say that I am no namby pamby on recent events.  I favour the toughest measures possible (whether it be plastic bullets, water cannon or whatever) and the harshest punishments possible, in order to ensure that we never see a repeat of the riots. But, I feel deeply uneasy about 'the Government' or 'the authorities' regulating, restricting - in effect  controlling - the use of social media or the use of Blackberries - both on grounds of political precedent and on practicality.

- We should be worried about the ratchet effect. Let's look at political precedent first: the problem with every curtailment of liberty - however noble the intention - it always has a ratchet effect.  Once you start restricting the Internet in this way, it becomes so much easier to restrict it for other reasons.  We may have a benign government now, but a future government might seek to use these powers to restrict social media on simple grounds of legitimate criticism.  You might think that such a course of action is far-fetched - and you may be right - but the problem is that any curtailment opens the door to further infringement.  As the saying goes, liberty is hard won but easily lost.

- Banning social media just wouldn’t work. Second, let's look at practicality.   How on earth do you ban the use of Blackberries et al in this way?  Can you really curtail specific people from using Blackberry Messenger (BBM), given that they will just obtain another Blackberry with a different identity, or use other mobile networks, or other Internet services? True, you can block off mobile phone signals in a particular area, but that hits not only the innocent, but also can be dangerous for those caught up in riots trying to contact the emergency services.

- Banning social media is censorship, by another name. Is the state really going to expand its power to such a degree to monitor every Facebook account, or force Research In Motion (the maker of Blackberries) to hand over trillions of gigabytes of data)?  It is just not feasible. Bad people will always take advantage of technology for evil purposes. Ban BBM and they will soon find another method to try and destroy our society.  Technology - especially mobile technology - is Hydra's head writ large.  We have to face the fact that it is pretty difficult to contain:  instead let us do all we can to make sure that more people are using it as a for good rather than a force for bad.

- Social media isn’t the root cause of the riots. Blaming social media for the riots is a bit like banning beer, because some people get drunk in Town Centres on a Saturday night. Another example is the Molotov Cocktail principle. We don’t want Molotov Cocktails, but does that mean we should ban glass bottles? It would be much better to deal with the root causes of the riots, and prevent these individuals from abusing social media in the first place.

- The UK needs social media: to boost our democracy, and our economy. It was a big loss last week, when Twitter announced that it would establish an international headquarters: not in London, but in Dublin. We need to prove that Britain wants to be a hub for social media, with competitive tax rates, and to prove that the Government can see social media as a force for good. Let's remind ourselves of the good that social media and mobile phones can bring in terms of empowerment, communication and the portabilty of the Internet.

- Social media was used by our Emergency Services and communities, to organise the clean-up. This was one of the main points made in evidence heard by the Home Affairs Select Committee, after the riots – particularly that Blackberry has revolutionised email across the world - to make it accessible without the need for any computer, and affordable for the many. Why not strengthen our democracy, by encouraging mobile communication rather than stifling it?  It is a challenge, yes, but one well worth taking.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Blackberry: The enemy of Dictatorships: Time for a Blackberry democracy index

picture from Chillnite.com

The Economist magazine often has a McDonalds index, which assesses the economic prosperity of individual countries via the cost of a Big Mac.

In a similar context, is it time to judge each country's democratic index based on the level of Blackberry usage? I ask this question following the decision of two Middle East autocracies, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, to restrict Blackberry services. These regimes have done this on the grounds that Blackberry email and messaging is encrypted, making it virtually impossible for state surveillance and interception. The next country expected to do the dirty on Blackberry is Kuwait.

Last year, the UAE tried to get Blackberry to 'update' its software. It subsequently emerged that the update was in fact spyware, which would have enabled the UAE Government to track Blackberry emails. Fortunately, RIM, the maker of Blackberry, ensured that users deleted the software that had been uploaded.

Although modern technology has its downsides, the beauty of smartphones like Blackberries are that they need no landline and no broadband Internet connection to work. They rely only on mobile telephony and in Blackberry's case, the special Blackberry infrastructure. In moments, emails can be drafted, tweets can be twittered and Facebook messages sent. They are outside the all-seeing eye of the Big Brother State. All we need now is for RIM to develop satellite software that can bust the jamming of these autocratic Governments. These regimes, will be able to hold back this technology for only so long.

I have little doubt that countries which have the highest level of freedom and property rights, have the highest level of Blackberries or smartphones. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "The Liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties". What better 21st Century way of speaking and writing can there be than the Blackberry - the enemies of dictators everywhere.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Stopped and Searched by Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2000)

Driving down the Embankment mid morning, a few days ago, I looked at some police ahead in a coned area . One Police Officer, a hundred yards away from the cones saw me in my car and spoke to his walkie-talkie. Hey-ho, I thought to myself, what's up?

My answer came quickly, as minutes later I was flagged down by another Policeman who indicated to me to stop my car, which, being a law abiding citizen, I duly did. I did wonder what was going on. There was nothing defective with my car, no offence I had committed.
The Police Officer, incredibly courteous, explained that he had stopped me under Section 44 of the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act. This meant that anyone, at any time, even if no offence was being committed could be stopped by the Police. The Act states:

"Under Section 44 officers may search any pedestrian or vehicle for evidence related to terrorism. They do not need to show reasonable cause to stop and search you".

I wondered what evidence they had?

I was asked to get outside the car - although to be fair, they then allowed me to stay in it - whilst my car was thoroughly searched by officers with rubber gloves and licence details checked. I also had to give them a form of identification. Finding nothing of concern , I and my car were cleared of any wrong-doing, I was sent on my way with a friendly cheerio.

Despite the politeness of the Police concerned, I have to say that I felt my liberties as a free citizen were unfairly infringed upon - a sense (albeit a small one) of grievance against the 'authorities'.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (2000) gives the State huge power against ordinary citizens going about their business, and there is very little redress. I had committed no offence, yet my privacy and my personal property (my car), were seen as public properties of the Government.

The logical extension of this is enormous. Can you imagine what will happen, if Labour gets it way and we are all forced to have ID cards. Our personal freedom as private citizens will be hugely diminished as the State will be able to stop us at will, asking us "for our papers".

Of course, there will be those who say that all this is necessary to fight terrorism. I don't doubt that tough measures are needed. But I would like to know how far random stopping of motorists has really diminished the terrorist threat to the UK. Surely there must be better modes of surveillance?

If we believe in liberal democracy, we have to hold out strongly for its values too. We weaken these values at great cost. Of course there is a balance between liberty and security and state intervention. But are we tipping this balance too far in one direction?

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Lest we forget

I felt very very proud to be British today.

Harlow's British Legion organised (as they do every year), a moving ceremony to mark Remembrance Sunday, and I was pleased to lay a Wreath in my capacity as Conservative Parliamentary Candidate.

Whatever the troubles to overcome, whatever the difficulties our nation faces, the deep humanity of our fellow citizens shows itself on a day such as this. We remember the fallen, not just as a mark of respect, but to remind ourselves that our freedom is due to their bravery.

We should never forget.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

The Taliban Spirit lives on in Afghanistan

One of the most brutal aspects of the extreme Islamism of the Taliban, was the way in which women were subjugated and treated as second class citizens. The West's invasion of Afghanistan was designed not just to deal with Osama Bin Laden, but also to help rid the country of Islamist Totalitarianism and restore a sense of civility to the country.

Now we find that despite a semblance of the mechanics of democracy, the Taliban spirit lives on, even under those who are seen as so called 'moderates'. Today's Guardian and Daily Telegraph explains how President Karzai - in an effort to win votes from Shias, in advance of the forthcoming elections - has signed into law, legislation which, in effect, allows husbands to rape their wives If this barbarism were not bad enough, the new law also refuses wives the right to work, to see a Doctor, or leave the house without their husband's permission. The United Nations has condemned the new laws, demanding to see the full legislation - which thus far they have been denied.

Whilst I was a full supporter of the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda (and remain so) - who couldn't be after 9-11- I can't help feeling that something, somewhere, has gone deeply wrong. What is also going on in Afghanistan today, is also an important reminder, that freedom does not just mean holding democratic elections. It has has to be about upholding the rule of law guaranteeing property rights, and above all treating all human beings equally and with dignity. President Karzai has failed this simple test of genuine liberty.