Morocco

Morocco, in its attempt to surf on the wave of pan-Arab unrest, is holding early elections today. No-one knows what's going to happen.

Image from Casablanca Airport Transport

On paper, the constitution of Morocco looks a lot like Britain in terms of the power held by the monarch. In Britain, however, (like Poland before us) we took the wise step of selecting a king who didn't speak the language and wasn't really into politics. Since then, we've only really had to worry about the Monarchy at Christmas, in the tabloids and at some of the better race meets. In Morocco, however, the character of the country is still very much influenced by the character of the King.

Thus, had the Arab Spring happened under previous king (and world-class tool) Hassan II, it would have been Syria all over again, at best. Instead, it happened under his son Mohammed VI.

King Mohammed came to the throne in 1999 with pretty much unlimited power: there was a parliament, instituted two years earlier, but he picked the Prime Minister, could write and pass laws by decree, and appointed judges, generals and civil servants at his own discretion. Surprisingly, he started giving some of that away almost immediately, significantly beefing up parliament. He also reformed the family code quite extensively, bringing in such cutting-edge reforms as 1) Unmarried women may inherit property 2) Men may not take a second wife without the agreement of the first and 3) women who are subject to domestic abuse may file for divorce.

Depressingly, these moves are described as having been "polarising", with conservatives claiming he'd been "led astray" by "foreign influences". Nonetheless, between that and the moves he's made to open the country to foreign investment and help the poor, the King seems to be pretty popular with the average Moroccan. He's also popular with western leaders, and it's not hard to find pictures of him meeting, shaking hands, shaking hands, shaking hands, cracking jokes and having a rare old time.

Image from the Moroccan American Business Council

So King Mohammed is the face of gently-gently reform in the Arab world. Since this spring, of course, people have somewhat lost patience with gently-gently.

Image from Agadir Vacations

Shortly after Ben-Ali had fled Tunisia and Mubarak had decamped to Sharm-el Sheikh, the King, perhaps realising which way the wind was blowing, went on TV and announced a sweeping constitutional reform. This included separation of powers, recognising minority languages, and basically upgrading the Prime Minister to a full head of state, rather than the King's majordomo. It also required that the PM be a member of Parliament from the largest party, rather than just whoever the King picked. It was also, in a nice touch, a referendum- though as it turns out, he needn't have worried.

There are those who wonder if he wasn't giving the protesters a bit of flannel, or being the good cop to the police's bad cop: that theory is somewhat supported by the fact that the people discussing it got their press credentials revoked.


I'm not going to go into a great deal of detail on the different parties, for a few reasons. For one, there are twenty of them and at the last elections the largest didn't crack 11% of the vote.

That frgamentation might be a consequence of apathy; Moroccans weren't super impressed by the pre-reform Parliament, possibly because all it could really do is advise the King in the "Good idea or great idea?" sense of the word "advise". Consequently, turnout was around 37%.

On the other hand, turnout in the constitional referendum this year was comfortably north of 70%, and there's been quite a rush on new voter registrations since then. What I'm saying is that the 2011 elections are going to be qualitatively different than the 2007elections were, and it's anyone's game. The overwhelming probability is that there'll still be a coalition government of atleast three or four parties, but getting the #1 cup is still a prize worth getting as that party nominates the Prime Minister.

Any step-change in the electorate is going to make an election unpredictable, but that is even more true this time around. Part of the constitional reforms bought in were electoral lists that are reserved exclusively for women, and another exclusively for people under 35. In my opinion, it's a great idea: the Arab Spring has been driven predominantly by the youth, and giving the political parties a big incentive to channel those people into representative democracy seems like a masterstroke to me.

As an aside, I happen to think this would be an alright idea in Britain, too, but there's a key difference between here and there:

Image from Nationmaster

Image from Nationmaster

So, there are twenty parties now and the whole order could be upended today. Nonetheless, here's the overall shape and a few names to look out for in the news.

1) King-and-country conservatives. Major themes include supporting the monarchy (in principle but not so much in the person of reform-minded Mohammed) and taking back those bits of the Morocco that still innacountably think that they're part of Spain. Name to remember: The Istiqlal party, a.k.a. the Independence Party, home of the current Prime Minister.

2) God-and-family conservatives. Name to remember: The Justice and Development party. Yes, that name should be familiar, but be aware that Morocco doesn't have the traditions of Republicanism and secularism that Turkey does.

3) The Left. Shading from unreformed old members of COMINTERN through to people somewhere around the New Labour mark, you can be pretty confident of naming a party in this group if you just name any left-of-centre political party you've ever heard of. Particular examples include Socialist Union Popular Forces, the Democratic and Social Movement, the Labour Party, the Democratic and Social Movement, the Socialist Party, the Unified Socialist Party, the Party of Progress and Socialism, the Democratic Socialist Vanguard, and the People's Front of Judea.

4) Conservative Liberals. To many of you, dear readers, that's going to sound like an oxymoron, but readers in Britain can probably imagine it. We're talking about people who like Enterprise Zones and deregulation, but also wish that men still wore hats in public and smoked pipes after dinner. They're not in favour of Imams writing government policy or sending the marines into Melilla, but they do like the comfort of a nice ordered society. They're not in favour of radical reforms or great causes, but they do concede that things are better now than they were a hundred years ago and support cautious moves to make the nextdecade (slightly) better still. In other words, they are absolutely in harmony with King Mohammed.

Even as the King is slowly giving away his nominal powers, the fact is that Morocco is still a country where connections, money and wasta is the way most things get done. Between that and a divided parliament, no-one expects Mohammed to be anything other than the locus of power in Morocco for the foreseeable future.

The real question to be decided is whether the Moroccan people- and especially the people in the streets- get on board with the elections, and what the shape of the electorate looks like if they do. Ironicaly, a big swing towards Islamists or old-school Nationalists (and against the king) might cause him to buckle down and hold on to what power remains. A big victory for the parties aligned with the King, especially if it's from young voters, will be an endorsement of his schemes for steady drip of reform and could see Mohammed handing his throne to a largely or entirely ceremonialised sucessor.

A quick look at Spain

Image from the University of Texas

As the name of the blog suggests, I am a fan of the game first. That doesn't mean that I don't have favourites. One of those favourite has long been the Partido Socialista, and Prime Minister Zapatero.

Elected back in 2004, the Socialists have been pretty effective at achieving their goals. Spain withdrew from Iraq (apparently putting them, in the eyes of American Republicans, somewhere between Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales). Zapatero, along with Erdogan, spearheaded the Alliance of Civilizations initiative at the UN. They increased access to safe terminations and ended the ban on gay couples being able to marry (and this was back in 2005, before even Sweden was down with it): No mean feat, in a country that is somewhere between ninety and a million percent Catholic. It's not what you'd expect!

So all in all, I like Zapatero and his merry band of socialists. Sadly, as of this weekend it looks like I'll be fans of them in the same way that I'm a fan of Firefly and the Mariners. Unless every poll in the country is wrong, and wrong to the tune of ten points or more, the Partido Socialista are out and the Partido Popular are in.

Incidentally, when we had a referendum (and what a referendum! It was on whether to swap from the worst system of voting to the second-worst), what both sides really wanted was Spain. It's proportional representation, and not just weak-tea-AV but full-blooded Party List PR. Despite that, and despite strong regional traditions it's a two-party system between Red and Blue.

Spain is one of Europe's wobbly economies; this is a problem, because the Spanish economy is about twice the size of Greece, Portugal and Ireland put together. The other big-enough-to-destroy-Europe economy is Italy, but Zapatero has been getting generally positive reviews from the moneymen about how he's keeping a lid on the crisis (the same was not true of Berlusconi). Of course, now he's leaving.

On the other hand, there's this:

Unemployment, total (% of total labor force)

Data from World Bank

Spain is not impressed with your Occupy camp.

This frustration is the main reason I hedge on predicting the result. It seems strange that mass protests among the youth would lead to the election of a centre-right establishment party who have campaigned on cutting everything except pensions. I can easily imagine a Dewey Defeats Truman situation; the Indignados have been saying they're going to spoil their ballot papers, but it's not hard to imagine a last-minute rally to the Socialists or (more likely) a surge for one of the minority third parties: the United Left and the Union for Progress and Democracy, both on less than 5% and both on downward trajectories, could be in the game for a revitalisation.

The Angry Elephant: Republicans 2012

The Republican Party logo, via Wikipedia

You're probably vaguely aware of the ongoing Republican Primary. That's because it's been insane.

I started this blog when I was forced to go cold turkey by the end of the 2007/2008/2009 US presidential election. Americans have the best elections. Well, I mean, the best for an outside observer. I imagine that as a way of choosing a government, it's suboptimal. In fact, most of the things that make it fun to watch (soundbites, balloons, goodies and baddies) are pretty obviously detrimental to making good decisions. But heck, this is Democracy Fan and I am sitting at my computer with a bucket of popcorn.

In November 2012, Barack Obama is going to run for re-election, and the Republican party are now picking someone to run against him. Various states will hold primary elections, the first being Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, all of which will probably happen in January. At this stage the contenders are all competing for volunteers, donations and the support of party bigwigs to maximise their chances of winning: they call it the "Invisible Primary". So friends, foreigners, countrymen, lend me your ears, and I'll tell you what I think of the runners and riders.

Jon Huntsman

Image from Time magazine

Jon Huntsman was the former Governor of Utah. Conservatives liked him: his approval rating averaged 80%, in a state that preferred McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden by a ratio of about 2:1. Independents like him: he left the governorship to become Ambassador to China, proving he can work productively with a Democratic administration, and his position on gay rights is a very moderate compromise. Technocrats like him: during his tenure, Pew rated Utah as the best-run state. He's telegenic, intelligent, has a big adorable family and can ask the way to the airport in Mandarin Chinese. Of all candidates, he does the best against Obama in polls of the general population- and by quite a margin.
Will he be the nominee?
No.
Well, why not?

Remember, the electorate of the Republican primary isn't the same as the general population. Jon Hunstman is the only person on this list who has been unambiguous in agreeing with the scientific consensus on evolution and climate change (Romney has been ambiguous). A lot of Republicans are never, ever going to vote for someone who accepts a "liberal" position at the first sign of decades of overwhelming scientific evidence.
Polling average: 1%

Mitt Romney

Image from The Daily Caller

There are few political moves more time-honoured than the the flip-flop attack, or, as we know it in Britain, the dreaded U-turn label. It's a classic for a reason; people on both sides of the issue get to see your opponent disagreeing with them, and people who don't have a firm opinion get the impression he's a typical two-faced politician. Mitt Romney is going to have a very hard time avoiding the flip-flop attack.

The problem is that his previous political career was in Massachusetts, which has always been something of a special case in American politics.  It's in a fight with Vermont and Rhode Island for the title of Most Liberal State, which means that if you want to be governor you don't campaign there by calling for the abolition of corporation tax, quoting the Old Testament and firing a gun in the air. Sadly, as it turns out, you can't campaign in the Republican primaries without doing those things. You could give up in the face of that, but Romney's no quitter.

Mitt Romney's strategy now may be to shoot the moon: to become so synonymous with doubletalk that in the future, when conservatives hear him say "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose", or when liberals hear him say "I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade", both sides will assume he's just pandering to the other. Obviously, he can't come right out and make his campaign slogan "Mitt Romney: Maybe I Don't Mean A Word Of It". That said, I struggle to think of a reason other than lampshading for him to have said "I've been as consistent as human beings can be".

So will he be the nominee?

Well, he has the most money, endorsements, best staff and most consistent showing in opinion polls. So it seems likely, but he actually has a bigger problem than flipflopping. In Massachusetts, he worked with the Democratic-dominated legislature to come up with a broadly right-wing market-based health insurance reform plan. Unfortunately for him, a few years later Barack Obama did the same thing. Which, by the transitive power of partisan rage, means that Mitt Romney was born in Kenya.
Polling average: 22.5%

Rick Perry

Image from the Office of the Governor

Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. This is a traditionally strong position; state governors do a lot of the things that a President has to, and Texas is one of the biggest and hardest states to run. Perry has a strong list of endorsements and is popular with conservatives.

As we've seen, a major problem for Mitt Romney is that people are afraid he is opposed to people dying. Rick Perry, on the other hand, has signed over two hundred death warrants, even when Amnesty International said he really shouldn't. He also apparently carries a gun tucked into his running shorts in case he comes across a coyote.

Will he be the nominee?
It's possible. His fundamentals are good; really there's only one big problem. Let me put it this way: I'm not a good public speaker. When I give a speech people might say "He seemed really nervous" or "He needed to project more". They don't say "I wonder if it was the back medicine he's been taking".

Well, at least that was just a New Hampshire town hall, right? It's not like it was on national TV, or easily described in ten seconds, or splashed across every English-language newspaper in the world. Well, that was last week.

On one hand, now everyone has heard his plan to abolish the departments of Commerce, Energy and Education. The problem with that is that among their other duties, Energy maintain America's nuclear weapons so they don't go off unexpectedly, Commerce runs the census (which is constitutionally required) and if you're about to say something stupid, it may be best not to talk about abolishing Education.

Finally, of course, America has recently had an evangelical Republican governor of Texas who gets his words mixed up,and even some Republicans aren't quite willing to go back there yet.
Polling average: 10%

Herman Cain

Image from the Telegraph

Herman Cain is a definite puzzle for political buffs. A few weeks ago, my assessment would have been a fun uncle to joke with at your cousin's wedding, but that almost anyone else at that wedding would probably make a better president. He's never held elected office, he doesn't have much money on hand and what he does may have been collected illegally, and his ads look like they were made in GCSE Media Studies. When I started writing this note, he was the front runner.

His doesn't know much about foreign policy, and appears to be proud of the fact. His tax plan involved doubling or trebling the taxes for poor families, little old ladies, and disabled veterans, all to pay for massive tax cuts for Wall street bankers and CEOs like himself. It turned out that his company had quietly settled out of court to make a number of sexual harassment cases go away, and people just kept cheering for him anyway.

Will he be the nominee?
Man, who knows? I'd bet quite a lot against it, though.
Why not?
Well, for one thing, he has slipped a bit in the polls since more details about his sexual harassment suit have come out. It now seems a lot less like what voters had assumed- that is, a Democrat feminist political correctness gone mad- and a bit more like, well, sexual assault. Depressingly though, what may have more impact on his chances of getting elected is how the campaign dealt with the scandal. Apparently Politico, which had the scoop, gave the Cain campaign ten days grace period before running it; despite that, they seemed to have no strategy in place at all. So at first he denied any knowledge, then said he thought maybe there was some kind of unfounded accusation but there was no settlement, or maybe there was and it was three months pay, or maybe six months, or maybe a year, or maybe there were three or four cases. It starts to look like compulsive lying, and there's not much scope for more charitable interpretations.

The more general case is that the Herman Cain campaign seems a bit like a prank that's gotten out of hand. They don't have state offices organising volunteers, they don't have a coherent media message, and there are definitely no Josh Lymans or CJ Creggs around the candidate. In other words, it seems very likely that either this scandal, or the next one along, will fatally wound the campaign. Or, failing that, when we get to the actual elections there'll be no-one to remind voters that the election's today and offer to give them a ride down to the pollbooth.
Polling average: 22%

Newt Gingrich

Image from Gawker

If Herman Cain is a lovable buffoon, then Newt Gingrich is the exact opposite.

Newt was Speaker of the House in the nineties, so there's no question over whether he knows how a bill becomes a law. He has a doctorate in Modern History and has been described as the brain of the Republican Party; in some ways he is to this race what Al Gore was to the Democrats in 2008. He's deviated from orthodoxy a few times, and so is probably not to afflicted with epistemic closure. The man is no dummy.

What he does have is a likability problem. His experience would normally be an asset, except that this year people the fashion is to be an outsider- plus, many who remember the nineties remember his as belligerent and petulant. His attitude towards the media oscillates between loathing and contempt. Finally, he's running for the nomination of a family-values party when he's been divorced twice- according to legend, having the "We need to talk" talk with his first wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery.

Will he be the nominee?
It doesn't seem very likely. He doesn't poll very well, even now that Perry and Cain have taken a bit of a beating and the anyone-but-Mitt-Romney crowd are getting desperate. His more likely route to power is to be picked a Vice President if one of the "lightweight" candidates- say, Cain or Perry- were to win.
Polling average: 14%


Ron Paul

Image from runronpaul.com

Let's get this out of the way now. Ron Paul's polling average is 8.5%, which in itself would make him a serious contender. He isn't, though.
Why not?
Ron Paul isn't really a Republican. He's opposed to the PATRIOT act, supports the legalisation of cannabis and heroin, and would bring in massive defence cuts by ending all overseas wars (No more Iraq or Vietnam, but also no more Libya or WWII). On the other hand, he is certainly no Democrat- he's for abolition of the Income tax, thinks that people without health insurance should have thought of that before getting sick, and opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds that if a school district wants to put up a sign saying Whites Only, it is their constitutional right to do so.

Ron Paul is on 8.5% today, as he was yesterday and will be forever. He's a third-party candidate and while there is some overlap with the Republican field, he's no more likely to be the Republican nominee than Nick Clegg is to be the next leader of the Conservatives.

You've got to give the man this, though: his guys get to the polls. He's a living lesson in polling statistics, and I love him for it.

Michelle Bachmann

Image from TPM

Michelle Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota. Michelle Bachmann is pretty right-wing. Michelle Bachmann thinks that global warming is a hoax because carbon dioxide is natural. Michelle Bachmann thinks that the financial crisis would be solved if Wall Street were deregulated some more. Michelle Bachmann says that there are no gay people, just gay acts. Michelle Bachmann believes that rape victims should cary the foetus to term. Michelle Bachmann has heard that vaccinations cause retardation. Michelle Bachmann is worried that the census is the first step to a totalitarian government. Michelle Bachmann wants to be assured that the New World Order aren't planning a one-world currency. Michelle Bachmann wishes congress would set up a committee to investigate Unamerican activities. Michelle Bachmann is worried about the rise of the Soviet Union. Let's just say that Michelle Bachmann says a lot of things.

Will she be the nominee?
Well, she's arguably the favourite in Iowa, but the odds are it won't go much further than that. Since the straw poll, she's made an unfortunate habit of doing things and saying words, and that has really hurt her chances.
Polling average: 3.7%

Rick Santorum

Image from NY Daily News

Poor old Rick's on only a few percent of the vote, and it doesn't look like he has much prospect of improvement, possibly because his whole schtick is blaming everything bad that's happened since Nero on gay people. Santorum is mostly famous for his Google problem; that is, if you spend your career saying incredibly mean-spirited things about sexual minorities and people on the internet, then it is possible that over time your Google hits will take a turn for the lurid. I advise anyone considering typing "Santorum" into a search engine to think of it like swimming in the sea off Blackpool: only do it with adult supervision, and not within an hour of eating. And don't expect to feel clean when you get out.
Polling average: 1.5%

Sarah Palin

Will she be the nominee?
No.
Why not?
Not running, too hard. Also, she already has a new job.

It's actually too late for Palin to apply to even have her name on the ballot in several early states. The only route now would be if the Primaries turned into an epic bitter death-match (say, between Romney and Perry) and the Nominating convention decides to basically throw out all the results and find a new candidate.This has happened before, allbeit not for decades. If it did, they'd probably want a consensus-builder, and would have one eye on the General election where they have to appeal to Independents.They might settle on Chris Christie, Jeb Bush or Tim Pawlenty. They would not settle on Sarah Palin.
Polling average: 0%

A word of warning


At this point in the 2008 election, most people (myself included) thought the general election would be between Guiliani and Clinton. At this point it's too late for anyone new to enter the race, but we can definitely see a lot of movement yet. Things often start going wrong when people actually go out to vote.