Departures with Robert Amsterdam

In recent years, the theme of decolonization has become a thriving industry. It dominates academia, it frames historical narratives, and makes its way into the deepest corners politics and culture to the point that it is inescapable. But what has decolonization done for us lately, asks Cornell University Professor Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò in his new polemic, "Against Decolonisation: Taking African Agency Seriously." In his conversation with Robert Amsterdam, Táíwò explains how the decolonization narrative lost its way, its meaning, and its purpose when it has been so indiscriminately applied to everything from literature, language and philosophy to sociology, psychology and medicine. This relatively short period of history, Táíwò says, has been overwhelmingly exaggerated to the point that it has deprived Africans of agency and continues to hamper thought and innovation. Pointing to the example of South Korea forming a national identity and history in which Japanese colonalism was an episode, not an origin story, Táíwò and Amsterdam also discuss the many ways in which modern authoritarians and despots in Africa use the decolonization narrative to engender further abuses upon their populations. Táíwò's book challenges traditional thinking, and demands the reader to consider whether today’s ‘decolonization’ truly serves African empowerment, or if we need to broaden our understanding of a more complex history.

To rise to power within the rigidly authoritarian party bureaucracies of the Soviet Union and China is a feat accomplished only with great strategic acumen, backhanded political maneuvering, and, sometimes, with a certain level of violence. On this week's episode of Departures with Robert Amsterdam we are very pleased to feature Joseph Torigian, an assistant professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington and the author of the new book, "Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion: Elite Power Struggles in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao." Drawing on fresh insights from historical archives and expansive field research, Torigian's book picks apart the commonly assumed myths of how these reformers came to power via intra-party democratic processes and instead highlights the often flawed and aggressive personalities which shaped these elite power dynamics - with more than a few inferences which can apply to today's leadership in Moscow and Beijing.

In the past, when insurgencies challenged the power of the state, they did so from a position of occupying physical territory. But in today's wildly unregulated post-truth environment and hyperconnected society, the space that they occupy is virtual - and most democracies are not well prepared to deal with these often violent threats to the hegemony of representative government. Dr. David Ucko, a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King's College, has recently published a fascinating new book addressing these issues titled, "The Insurgent's Dilemma: A Struggle to Prevail." Joining Robert Amsterdam in this podcast discussion, Ucko explains how extremist groups have become increasingly successful at challenging the preexisting norms and agreements that societies have, often using clever humor and familiar tropes to "break down the memetic defenses" of their audience and get people to entertain anti-democratic messaging, among other toxic ideological positions. "The image that my work on infiltrative insurgency conjures up is that of a Trojan horse," said Ucko, drawing comparisons with political parties which have ties to armed wings. "You have a strictly anti-democratic party using the democratic openness of the state to achieve power in the government, but then they follow its anti-democratic agenda to dismantle the system from within." Amsterdam and Ucko further discuss the challenges of how democracies must attempt to balance the participation of parties which do not pose a threat to the system itself, how democracies can sustain the myth of a nation state while dealing with rampant Russia-sponsored social media campaigns, and how counter-insurgency now has to involve "deeply epistemological questions of trust in authority."

As China approaches the 20th Party Congress to be held at the end of the year, President and CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping is aggressively promoting his government's superhuman achievements and infallible contributions to the glory of the state, making his case for an inevitable third term, and perhaps, leadership for life. But the problem with long-running leaders of authoritarian systems is that after a while, the people they surround themselves with are no longer the most trusted, the most competent, and the most influential - instead a pattern emerges that the leader prefers to be surrounded by weak, marginal officials who pose no threat to their leadership. This is the core argument of a fascinating book by Victor Shih of the University of California San Diego called, "Coalitions of the Weak: Elite Politics in China from Mao's Stratagem to the Rise of Xi." In his conversation with Robert Amsterdam, Shih shares fresh insights and fascinating details of the late Mao period based on a deep investigation of archival documents and data, showing how the most well networked officials were pushed aside in favor of politically tainted and incapable functionaries, leading to two generations of weak central leadership - a vacuum which provided the opening for the rise of Xi.

Today there are currently fewer global citizens living in open and free democratic systems than in 1989, a sobering fact underlining the rapid global expansion of authoritarian regimes around tthe world. According to Moisés Naím, the world has made itself safer for tyrannical leaders to install themselves, often using the "three Ps" of populism, polarisation and post-truth, putting both fragile and established democracies at risk of extinction. In Naím's latest book, "The Revenge of Power: How Autocrats Are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century," it is argued that these environmental factors of propaganda and polarization are compounded by harsh economic circumstances, including inflation and inequality, placing greater pressure on democracies and raising public discontent with the state, paving the way forward for authoritarian opportunists. In this podcast conversation with host Robert Amsterdam, Naím discusses and contrasts his experiences in Venezuela with the tragedy of January 6th in Washington DC, and points to the utmost importance of having a well informed citizenry and what can be done to regulate disinformation while exploring what other options should be explored to better protect the world's remaining democracies from tyranny.

“Imagine that all of humanity stands before you and comes to this court and cries. These are our laws, let them prevail.” -Sir Hartley Shawcross, War Crimes Trials, Nuremberg, Germany, July 27, 1946 After discovering a former Nazi who belonged to the same killing unit as her grandfather and was the subject of a posthumous criminal investigation and concurrently a rehabilitation petition in Latvia, author Linda Kinstler began to deconstruct what these laws really mean when people are removed by time and memory from historical truths. A phenomenal non-fiction debut, in “Come to this Court and Cry” Kinstler explores both her family story and the archives of ten nations, to determine what it takes to prove history in the uncertainty of the 21st century. In this week’s Departures podcast, Robert Amsterdam and Kinstler discuss the implications of the neoliberal memory boom and unravel the perversions of law, when revisionism, ultra-nationalism and denialism can alter history and open rehabilitation to those who were never formally oppressed. As a new generation reckons with the crimes of the Holocaust and the shadows of the Cold War in a post-truth era, they examine what justice means when we no longer have a shared agreement of the basic facts.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," is often a colloquial proverb tossed around to express a reluctant surrender to whatever dominant force one may be facing - but it might also be a decent way to express how many states have found their domestic political options increasingly constrained by in the age of globalization, whereby participation in international commerce binds a national government to the rules and norms of powerful institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But the question of who gets to set those rules and whose interests the norms favor has continued to be a sore point of contention. In his latest book, "The Meddlers: Sovereignty, Empire, and the Birth of Global Economic Governance," Harvard historian Jamie Martin examines the birth of the global economic order, and traces back many of its foundational assumptions and ideologies to earlier imperial political conflicts. Martin's book takes a close look at the major players who shaped the Bretton Woods conference, how they evolved from the post WWI institutions like the League of Nations and Bank for International Settlements, and why they thought it necessary to create rules that could reach over national boundaries to enforce austerity, coordinate the central bank policy, oversee development programs, and regulate commodity prices. This effort to govern capitalism on a global level is fraught with problems common to most attempts to govern, including aspects of racism, colonialism, and the hubris of empires who believed they were in the best position to dictate decisions on behalf of other nations.

When one thinks of Zimbabwe, the concept of "free and fair elections" is not the first to come to mind. And yet, like many post-Cold War authoritarian states, elections are nevertheless organized and manipulated to produce something adjacent to public legitimacy, which becomes all the more treacherous when the opposition is able to actually win them. To discuss the rapidly developing situation in Zimbabwe, this week on Departures we are featuring a very special guest, Chenayi Mutambasere. Chenayi is a development economist based in the UK where she is also vice chair of Governors for UTC @MediaCityUK in Salford. She has worked for transformation projects in international banks, local government and the legal sector. Chenayi is a keen researcher and contributor to economic policy research in Zimbabwe.

State repression, whether or not it’s outwardly aggressive, invites backlash. So how does the Chinese state maintain control during disruptive periods of intense urbanization, even as heavy consequences impact society?  This week Departures is pleased to feature a discussion with Lynette Ong, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto about her excellent new book, "Outsourcing Repression Everyday State Power in Contemporary China." Through the coordination of independent social forces, including thugs and gangsters, local governments across China have successfully repressed the masses in land expropriation cases, and through evictions for demolition projects. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these nonstate actors have morphed into medical personnel and volunteers who are known community members. Ong argues this leveraging of neighbors and familiar faces to enforce the zero covid policy contributes to social compliance amid what are seen as increasingly harsh restrictions on the most basic personal liberties. In her discussion with host Robert Amsterdam, Prof. Ong discusses the recent zero covid policy and food shortages in Shanghai, where social unrest could be reaching a level unmatched by outsourced repression. Amsterdam and Ong discuss potential structural outcomes for how the party will need to adapt to manage social crises and if the current model experiences such a high profile break down.

War doesn't always look like it used to, with just tanks, missiles, ships, and planes. It also takes place online, and observers in the West are becoming increasingly aware of the need to increase cyber defense capacities as authoritarian states like Iran and China rapidly advance.  This poses important questions for democracies around the world: do open societies have more difficulty in mobilizing cyber defense than closed societies? And if so, why and what can be done to course correct? In this week's podcast we're pleased to feature special guest John Arquilla, co-founder of the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School, and author of “Bitskrieg: The New Challenge of Cyberwarfare." In their discussion, Amsterdam and Arquilla explore these questions and discuss Arquilla's condemnation of U.S. leadership's lack of mobilization towards cyber defense. Arquilla argues that democracies have become canaries in a coal mine, as their reliance on cyber warfare mechanisms have been delegated to the market-based solutions of Silicon Valley and Boston area tech firms; and watered down legislation in government.  Can the U.S. adopt a more nimble and effective approach to cyber warfare - or will authoritarian regimes continuing their rapid advances to gain the upper hand in cyber in the long run?  Have a listen to the show and get in touch to let us know your thoughts.