The Center for Governance and Public Management (CGPM) at Carleton University has won (as part of the larger consortium led by Ottawa-based COWATER International) a bid to participate in UK Department for International Development (DFID) projects in Africa and Asia in several developmental areas such as public sector governance, public financial management, empowerment and accountability. The total value of the projects to be negotiated within DFID framework is approximately $10 million.

About the project:

In May 2011, DFID published its business plan for 2011–2015 which described the coalition government’s structural reform priorities. Key priorities in relation to this framework are to strengthen governance and security in fragile and conflict-affected countries, and to lead international action to empower girls and women. Effective governance is essential to achieve sustainable development results. There is considerable evidence that effective governance matters for development. Currently 17 of DFID’s priority countries lie in the bottom third of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index and those countries most off-track in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) all fall down on the effective governance. Governments need sound public financial management, tax collecting strategies and fiscal spending priorities in order to provide services, and doing this in a way which enables citizens to hold them accountable.

Fragile and conflict affected states are furthest behind on the MDG with only 10 per cent of them on track to cut poverty and hunger in half by 2015. They represent 21 of DFID’s 28 footprint countries. Fragility has significant economic and social costs. As well as the human tragedy, armed conflict costs Africa around $18 billion per year. Making progress in fragile states to improve stability and advance MDG achievements is imperative to transform the lives of the world’s poor.

DFID has established a number of framework agreements covering the delivery of governance and security sector services for components of DFID bilateral programmes which may include much for the provision of public sector governance, public financial management, anti-corruption, security and justice reform, peace-building and state-building, and empowerment and accountability services. Each “Calldown Contract” under the framework agreements will be awarded to suppliers through a mini-competition.

This framework agreement will be awarded for two years with two possible extensions of 12 months each. Individual programmes to which contracts relate will typically be 3-5 year duration. The framework agreement will be subject to an annual review at the end of the first and second years. The geographic scope of the framework agreement is global and will include the 28 priority countries in Asia and Africa in which DFID has a bilateral programme.

The Framework Agreement will focus on priority countries where DFID intervention will have a measurable impact on governance and security outcomes. As a result of a competitive tendering, framework agreements have been made with sufficient suppliers to ensure competition within each lot.

Consortium Members:

• Cowater International Inc., Ottawa
• CRC Sogema Inc., Longueuil, Quebec
• Centre for Governance and Public Management of Carleton University, Ottawa
• Centre on Governance of the University of Ottawa
• Institute of Public Administration of Canada
• School of Public Policy and Governance of the University of Toronto

For more information, visit the website:
carleton.ca/cgpm

The chapters, written by leading academics, examine the strategies, successes, and failures of the major political parties — the Conservatives (Faron Ellis and Peter Woolstencroft), the Liberals (Brooke Jeffrey), the New Democrats (David McGrane), the Bloc Québécois (Eric Belanger and Richard Nadeau), and the Green Party (Susan Harada).

Also featured in this volume are chapters on the nature of local campaigning (Alex Marland), the polls (André Turcotte), the campaign in the new social media (Mary Francoli, Josh Greenberg and Chris Waddell), and the nature of modern conservatism (Jonathan Malloy and Jim Farney). The book concludes with a detailed analysis of voting behaviour in 2011 (Harold Clarke and Tom Scotto) and an assessment of whether Canada is headed for a Stephen Harper dynasty (Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc). Appendices contain all of the election results.

If you’re a student engaged in area studies, the financial pressure may be even more daunting, if not insurmountable. Especially if you’re focusing on Russia.

Any Russian-related study program includes language training beyond what the University offers. It will likely also involve overseas travel for conferences and field research, something that can put a sizable dent anyone’s pocketbook, let alone a full-time student without the benefit of a salary.

Frank Stronach, Chairman of Magna International, Inc.  The Magna Fund, endowed at $90,000.00 annually for five years will support students and faculty engaged in Russian-related studies at Carleton University.

For this reason, academic units like the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (EURUS) rely heavily on outside funding to support the research activities of their students and faculty.

Until recently, EURUS received significant funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for several Russian-related projects. These were multi-million dollar projects which provided research jobs for students and funding to organize conferences and build collaborative relationships with external organizations.

But two years ago, CIDA withdrew their funds for Russian-related studies. Consequently, the Institute was facing a financial crisis which threatened the academic and financial welfare of its students and faculty. With no outside funding, the Institute could offer little more than a roster of Russian-related courses and access to academic supervision. While EURUS is known for delivering courses of the highest quality, students and faculty needed more just a graduate curriculum to really engage in Russian-related studies.

The time had come to move beyond relying solely on government support. With the assistance of the Russian Embassy, an appeal was sent out to companies who were commercially engaged with Russia. And, of the twelve companies initially contacted, the first to respond was Frank Stronach of Magna International, Inc., a manufacturer of automobile spare parts with a large factory just outside of St. Petersburg.

Stronach met with Political Science professor and former Institute Director Piotr Dutkiewicz to talk about possibilities, and the result was the establishment of the Magna Fund: $90,000.00 annually for five years – almost half a million dollars in total – to support students and faculty engaged in Russian-related studies at Carleton University.

While particularly relevant to students and faculty in EURUS, the fund is designed in such a way that any student or faculty member pursuing Russian-related studies or research may apply for funding, including those from Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology, History and the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

The fund will take the form of bursaries to support senior undergraduate students and graduate students who need to travel to Russia for language training or to conduct field research, and grants to support faculty in these units who travel to Russia or elsewhere for to attend conferences or conduct research related to Russian-area studies.

Funds will also be provided to establish a course in business in Russia, or another course on topic related to Russian-related studies, delivered jointly by the Institute and the Department of Political Science, and to support travel for Russian scholars and senior officials to deliver seminars and public lectures in Canada.

It may still be a struggle for a student of Russian-related studies to pay all the bills. But, thanks to Frank Stronach and Magna International, it’s no longer impossible.

Hard on the heels of every federal election comes a volume edited by Carleton faculty, marshalling the research and insights of several academic political observers. A collaborative effort between the School and Carleton’s political science department, the latest volume in the election analysis series, like four previous anthologies, is being edited by Chris Dornan and political scientist Jon Pammett.

Contributors from the School of Journalism and Communication include Susan Harada on the Green Party campaign; André Turcotte on polling; Chris Waddell and Mary Francoli on digital media; and editor Dornan on the overall campaign. Other contributors hail from Concordia, University of Saskatchewan, McGill, Memorial, Waterloo and the University of Toronto.

On the day the government fell, meanwhile, Chris Dornan found himself moderating a discussion among Jodi White, BJ’70, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Kim Campbell; Edward (Eddie) Goldenberg, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien; and Keith Beardsley, former deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The event, “Inside the Prime Minister’s Office,” was organized by Carleton professor Jonathan Malloy, president of the Canadian Study of Parliament Group.

Jennifer Lawless

Lawless’ goal is to encourage more women to run for political office, and her message to her listeners is this: women are just as deserving, qualified and capable of winning office as men.

And she’s got the experience and done the research to prove it.

In 2006 — at the age of 30, just five years over the minimum required age — she ran for the Democratic nomination in Rhode Island.

She’s also the co-author of It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office, with Richard L. Fox – originally published in 2005. In a revised edition published last year by Cambridge University Press, Lawless and Fox re-surveyed 4,000 activists, lawyers, private sector workers and educators — four political “pipeline” fields – and determined that, despite having identical resumes and qualifications, women were one-third less likely to consider themselves qualified than men to run for office and thus half as likely to actually run, even though evidence shows that “when women run, they win” – in equal proportion to their male counterparts.

Lawless used many of her own experiences in running for office, often with humour and vivacity, to convey her message, stressing the importance of staying positive and focused.

Lawless’ visit also included an address, via video-conference, to attendees at the American consulates in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax, as well as a speaking engagement at the National Equal Voice Tenth-Year Anniversary Summit of Women and Politics. (Equal Voice is the only multi-partisan Canadian organization dedicated to electing more women.)  Her visit also highlighted the work of Carleton students Mary Anne Carter, Rebecca Plumadore, Paroma Raychaudri and Keisha Thompson, who, with others, founded an Equal Voice chapter at Carleton University.

“It’s a cheesy line,” Iman Azman admits, “but it’s really true. Coming to Carleton has been a life-long dream.”

In a way, she has her dad to thank. When Iman was 12, he took her to a Canadian university fair in her hometown of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

“The Carleton booth was the first one I saw, and the woman there was really nice,” she recalls. “I knew I wanted to take journalism – CNN was always on at breakfast, and I loved to write and talk – and I knew Carleton had the best program.” When it came time for university, this was the only one she applied to.

“It was a bit of a gamble,” she concedes, “but if I hadn’t made it, I would’ve stayed home.”

Today, as Iman winds up her second year in Journalism and Political Science, she has become a Carleton ambassador herself, working for the Student Experience Office. Whether it’s helping serve tea at President Runte’s house, ushering at convocation, or participating in summer orientation, Iman enjoys giving folks a warm impression of Carleton students.

But her biggest responsibility has been to spearhead this year’s Alternative Spring Break (ASB), a program that links classroom learning with community service. She enjoyed participating in ASB during her freshman year, helping at a local school that serves mainly immigrant kids, and wanted to return to the program in a bigger role.

So last summer she found herself planning three ASB projects, including ones in Mexico and Guatemala, and revamping the Ottawa project to focus on poverty and homelessness.

The Ottawa team volunteered at a number of local organizations, from a drop-in centre to a soup kitchen, got a taste of poverty by living on a $7-a-day budget, and heard guest speakers who’d themselves lived on the street.

“There was real team-building,” Iman says. “At the end of the week, it was really hard to say goodbye to these 13 people. Luckily, I still see them around campus.”

She says the experience taught her not to be worried about reaching out to street people – even if it’s just to smile and say hello. She also learned organizations always need help. “Not enough students know about Carleton’s resources to connect them with local groups,” she says, pointing to the Student Experience Office Days of Service program as an example.

Planning for the three ASB projects – pulling together a fundraising plan, background reading, orientation sessions, and other logistics – meant she learned great skills: being quick on her feet, customer service, organization (“when you have to get up at 6:30 on Saturday morning to get to campus for 7:30, you’re pretty organized”).

Despite all that, Iman has carved out time for other interests. She serves on the executive of Carleton’s chapter of Journalists for Human Rights, maintains a blog, and is an avid photographer who sells some of her work for charity. She has also developed a passion for hockey (“back home the guys are really into soccer, but nothing compares to the fanaticism for hockey here”).

“I’m involved in so many things I feel a bit of pressure,” she admits. But that hasn’t cut into her academic achievements quite yet: last year, Iman was named a K. Phyllis Wilson Scholar.

Waller R. Newell is professor of political science and philosophy at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. He’s currently writing a book for Cambridge University Press on the differences between ancient and modern tyranny.

Since the French Revolution in 1789, revolutions have shown common features that are directly relevant to what is happening in Egypt right now. Since the final outcome in Egypt after Mubarak’s ouster– a new regime — may be weeks, even months or years, away, it is worth pausing to take the long view.

In general, the initial reformist phase of such revolutions focusing on individual rights and opportunity is swept aside by radicals who want an egalitarian and collectivist political order. Thus, liberal reformers like Lafayette and Mirabeau inspired by the American Revolution with its emphasis on individual liberty were followed by true collectivists like Marat and Robespierre. In the same manner, Kerensky was followed by Lenin; BaniSadr (if not exactly a liberal, a technocrat bent on secular modernization) by Khomeini.

The second, truly revolutionary phase is usually preceded by the delusion on the part of the liberal reformers that they can form a partnership with the radicals, harnessing their populist energy to help bring about the transition to free elections,economic modernization and individual rights. The radicals, for their part, always look on these alliances as purely tactical, to be overturned when the time was right to take over. We can predict a similar outcome for Mohommad El Baradei’s and other reformers’ opening to the Mulsim Brotherhood’s leaders.

Another consistent feature is that revolutions take place, not in the most repressive of tyrannies, but more typically in despotisms whose grip is already loosening, and where both a degree of economic prosperity and liberalization are already taking place. The administration of Louis XVI was the most liberal and reformist ever known in France; it attempted to introduce a free market system and break the economic hold of the aristocracy over the masses. Similarly, Tsar Nicholas II alternated between harsh repression and encouraging the Duma to share power with the crown; during his reign, the Russian economy was one of the fastest growing in Europe, reaching levels in agricultural production that Nikita Krushchev conceded in 1956 had still not been equaled.

In the case of Egypt under Mubarak, the outbreak against his rule was preceded by a period in which modest progress was being made in Egypt’s economic prospects and standard of living, due to a small amount of oil, a lot of tourism, and increasing foreign investment. This year the economy grew by a robust 6%. Ditto in Iran, where the Shah was committed to political and economic Westernization and secularization. Ditto in Russia, where Gorbachev’s toppling of the Soviet regime was preceded by the Brezhnev era in which Russians were finally tasting some solid economic benefits.

Common to these cases is Toqueville’s thesis of the revolution of rising expectations. Fitful and semi-effective autocratic reformers whet people’s hopes for a better future, but cannot satisfy the expectations they arouse. Their own semieffective reforms unleash the forces that overthrow them. Then the liberal reform regime is in turn swept away by the true revolutionaries, who do not want a liberal “bourgeois” revolution like the American revolution, but want to revoke both traditional authority and the half-completed modernization in favor of a populist collective.

During the flash point that signals the downfall of the autocrat, there is often a moment of truth when it becomes clear that the autocrat’s own allies, especially the military, will not take the extreme measures necessary to crush the revolt, and tell the autocrat they will not fire on the people. This happened with Louis XVI, the Tsar and the Shah. In the case of Gorbachev, he himself refused to use the Soviet military and security services to halt the out-of-control pace of his own reforms. And now Mubarak, whose generals told him the same thing, finally easing him out. In contrast, determined tyrannies like the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin will methodically kill tens of thousands of people until rebellion is crushed (for example., the Kronstadt rebellion). Currently, Syria exudes the silence of the grave as popular uprisings flair nearby, a sign of how grimly effective its tyranny is. And, since there is no television footage, no one calls for the demise of this far more lethal regime.

Finally, most revolutionary (as opposed to reformist) regimes embark on an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy. The reason is that, inevitably, it is impossible for them to fulfill their people’s desires for a better life, both because the transformation will take too long and because they are actually hostile to liberal reforms. There is also a genuine ideological fervor to spread the ideal of the collective to other peoples. They harness popular energy and turn it outward, whipping up the notion that they are surrounded by enemies bent on their destruction. This happened with the French Revolution, with National Socialism and with the Bolsheviks, and more recently with Iranian leader Ahmadinejad’s professed belief that the U.S. and Israel are constantly plotting Iran’s destruction, and that their destruction will bring utopia to the entire world.

Most of these features have been present in the current upheaval in Egypt. The initial, liberal revolution was sparked by people, especially educated young people, who had tasted a bit of economic and political modernization, but found that the regime could not deliver. As a rather shambling Mafia-style state, Mubarak’s Egypt was a relatively open society, awash in Western entertainment and commercialism, where only political dissent was treated ruthlessly. Like pre-revolutionary France, Russia, Weimar and the Shah’s Iran, it was a “wide open” society in the cities; Cairo is often called the New York City of the middle east. It thus encouraged the young to believe that a better life was coming, but constantly frustrated that hope. As for the new military rulers, chances are slim that any government brokered by them will satisfy the protesters – these men are among the departed Mubarak’s richest cronies and kleptocrats.

Should El Baradei (himself no friend of the U.S. and quite hostile to Israel) manage to lead the reformers in a coalition, he will be the transitional liberal figure, the parallel of Mirabeau, Kerensky or BaniSadr. For the Muslim Brotherhood are waiting in the wings, bent on creating an Islamist collective ruled by the extreme version of Sharia law, an imitation of the Iranian theocracy. And, already, quite predictably, they are beginning to say that their new Egypt will pursue an aggressively anti-Western, and above all anti-Israel policy, making common cause with their revolutionary partners in Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

A senior member of the Brotherhood has already announced that their aim will be to “prepare the Egyptian people for war with Israel” and called for the Suez Canal to be closed so as to disrupt the West’s oil trade. Another announced that a newly elected legislature’s first duty will be to re-consider the peace treaty with Israel. As a matter of course, as soon as they can, the Brotherhood will terminate Egypt’s tourist industry, one of its chief sources of income and an employer of many of the people demonstrating in Cairo today, because they regard tourists as a foreign taint and their interest in ancient  ruins as promoting paganism. As Islamist revolutionaries, whatever more palatable image they may choose to present for now, they do not have the slightest interest in raising the Egyptian people’s standard of living, because they detest liberal individualism and economic freedom.

As for the many commentators who observe that they have not yet asserted a leading role over the demonstrators, proving that the opposition is “broad-based,” why would that surprise anyone after a mere three weeks? Five years elapsed between the opening of the French Revolution and the Terror of 1793. It took two years for Bani Sadr to go from being the president of the new Iranian Republic to being impeached by the Khomeinists and driven from the country. There was an interval of seven months between the beginning of the Russian Revolution with Kerensky’s provisional government and the Bolshevik coup d’etat bringing Lenin to power. I find it striking that some leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are tipping their hand so early about their plans for when they come to power. It shows either foolhardy optimism or a sure sense of their grip on events.

I predict that, within a few months of a transitional reformist regime taking over, headed by a coalition of largely secular reformists, we will see enormous demonstrations in the streets by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, far better organized and militant than the ones that drove out Mubarak, a sea of banners shouting for the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of all American and western influence. Let’s make good and certain we know what we’re wishing for in Egypt. Authoritarian regimes can transition to liberal democracy, but it is an infinitely complex and potentially dangerous process.

Jennie Russell may be the first in Canada to graduate with a combined honours in global politics and journalism. Photo: Graham Pressey

by Peter Johansen

Jennie Russell never really thought about fencing as a sport for her until she read Carleton’s viewbook for prospective students. She was looking for ideas about extracurricular activities, and zeroed in on a brief reference to fencing.

“That looked good, so I went with a friend to a beginners’ class,” says the third-year student in Journalism and Global Politics, who admits most of what she knew about the sport came from movies that don’t often get things right. “I just really fell in love with it. It’s the smartest decision I’ve made at Carleton, because it’s really fun and I’ve met an incredible group of people I wouldn’t have met otherwise.”

Beginners were encouraged to try out for the varsity team, she says. She made the cut. “It was daunting, but the coaches are really friendly and open to helping out,” Jennie says.

She specializes in sabre (fencers can also do epee or foil). She’s been part of the women’s bronze-medal sabre team at the Ontario University Athletics (OUA) finals for the past two years, and she personally ranked in the top 10 at a tournament last year at Brock University. The next OUA finals will be held Feb. 5-6 at Royal Military College.

“I like sabre because it’s faster paced than foil or epee, more exciting to watch,” she explains. “It’s pretty thrilling to be part of it.”

Growing up in Oakwood, Ont., Jennie thought about studying creative writing in university. But after interning at the nearby Lindsay Daily Post during high school, she fell in love with journalism. That sealed her decision to attend Carleton.

“It’s important to make an impact in the world,” she says, “and when you combine that with a love of writing, journalism makes sense.” But she continues creative writing, mostly poetry, at home.

Because Global Politics is the only program of its kind in Canada, Jennie is on track to becoming the first graduate in Canada with a combined honours in that subject and Journalism. “Global Politics complements Journalism,” she notes. “You have to have a general knowledge of what’s going on in the world. Without it, you won’t be a very good journalist.”

Jennie also works part time at Crocs, a shoe store in the Byward Market, where she’s made friends, gets to practice French, and “likes talking to people, a prerequisite for journalism.” She relaxes with hot yoga: “I’m so busy, it’s a good way to unwind.”

The political junkies host “Raven’s Eye,” a political discussion every Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. on Carleton radio station CKCU-FM.  The program is also archived at ravenseye.yolasite.com.

Their special twist?  An unabashed student perspective.  The co-hosts, both second-year Political Science majors, interview Carleton students knowledgeable about the weekly topics.  If they can’t find a suitable guest, they bounce ideas off each other.

“It took a while to come up with the format, frankly,” admits Luke, who moved to Canada from Wales with his family in 2006.  “We tried several ideas, but essentially we thought that talking to students would be a brilliant way of bringing issues to life.”

President Roseann Runte was an inspiration, he adds: “She once suggested using more technology to give students a voice, and we see the program as doing that.”

The show can, arguably, trace its roots to the Mississauga high school where Jason caught the radio bug.  When he joined Carleton, he approached CKCU and did a couple of sample episodes, but didn’t like having no one to play off of.

When Luke came on as a guest, however, the “great chemistry” led to co-hosting duties, Jason says. “Luke has really become the main guy on the show.  He’s really the one who put it into overdrive.”

The two seem to complement each other in other ways, too.  Luke’s primary interest lies in Europe and Africa, while Jason is attracted to the U.S. and China.  Jason isn’t afraid of controversy, pushing his guests about their beliefs; Luke takes a more diplomatic approach.

Radio isn’t their only interest.  Luke does community outreach for the campus GLBTQ Centre, helping it connect with outside organizations, and he chairs a monthly get-together of post-secondary gay and lesbian centres across Ottawa.  Jason hosts Wednesday trivia night at Mike’s Place and is active in Carleton’s Model United Nations Club, participating in simulations at such schools as Harvard and Queen’s.  He’s twice been named outstanding delegate at York University’s annual model UN weekend.

“It’s really important to have diversified experiences as a student,” Luke explains.

Over the course of the past year, eleven political science faculty members (roughly one-third of the department) have produced new  publications, covering a diverse range of topics  such as religion and law in India, federalism and women’s political participation, Hume and political rhetoric, elections and the measurement of democracy, political and economic integration in Europe and North America,  international relations and ethics, Canadian security, refugees and the politics of asylum, and global politics and financial governance.

According to Randall Germain, Chair of the Department, research has always been and remains at the centre of the department’s activities  and mission.

“We consider ourselves one of the best departments of Political Science in Canada, he said.  “Our recent publication record is yet another indicator that we are at the top of our game.”

To celebrate the achievement, the department hosted an afternoon seminar on January 13th to  give students an opportunity to speak to the authors about their research.

The event showcased these recently published works:

Bill Cross.  Auditing Canadian Democracy. (UBC Press)

Joan deBardeleben and Achim Hurrelman, eds. Transnational Europe: Promise, Paradox, Limits. (Palgrave)

Randall Germain. Global Politics and Financial Governance. (Palgrave)

Marc Hanvelt. The Politics of Eloquence: David Hume’s Polite Rhetoric. (University of Toronto Press)

Melissa Haussman, Marian Sawer, Jill Vickers.  Federalism, Feminism and Multilevel Governance: Gender in a Global/Local World. (Ashgate)

Achim Hurrelmann.  Democracy’s Deep Roots: Why the Nation State Remains Legitimate. (Palgrave Macmillan)

James Milner. Refugees, the State and the Politics of Asylum in Africa. (Palgrave Macmillan)

Jon Pammett.  Dynasties and Interludes: Past and Present in Canadian Electoral Politics. With L. LeDuc, J. Mackenzie, A. Turcotte.  (Toronto: Dundurn)

Elinor Sloan.  Security and Defence in the Terrorist Era: Canada and North America. 2nd edition. (McGill-Queen’s University Press)

Gopika Solanki. Adjudication in Religious Family Law: Cultural Accommodation, Legal Pluralism, and Gender Equality in India (Cambridge University Press)