Skip to main content

Arabs and Democracy





An editorial at OpinionJournal refers to a new study published by the United Nations Development Program, specifically its new Arab Human Development Report:



The UNDP assembled a panel of distinguished Arab authors, including Clovis Maksoud, the former Arab League ambassador to the U.N., to take a hard look at the state of their own society. And while they don't fail to mention the evils of Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, they clearly realize the plight of 1% of the Arabs can't account for all the region's ills. Nor is this yet another plea for more aid from the rich countries. The report places blame squarely where it belongs--unaccountable and unrepresentative governments in the Arab countries themselves.
An indication of this, taken from the report, are the "Quality of Institutions in the Arab countries: standardized indicators," from Chapter 7, "Liberating human capabilities," page 113 of the report. Table 7-1 presents these standardized indicators, referring to high, medium, and low HDI groups. The high for graft was an indicator of 0.237, while the low was -0.953 -- that's right, a negative index! The average for the 17 Arab states involved in the study was -0.262.



Worse yet were the numbers generated by the "Borda rule" for measuring human well-being.



On the basis described above, no Arab country enjoys high human welfare. Seven Arab countries, representing only 8.9 per cent of the population of the sample of 17, enjoy medium human welfare. The remaining 10 Arab countries, accountin for 91.1 per cent of the sample population, have low human welfare.
The bar chart included illustrates this to rather devastating effect. (Quote and bar chart found in Chapter 7, page 113).



The pdf of the entire report is available for download. Now, please, can we stop blaming Israel for all the ills in the region and get to work on the real issues?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more