Content area
Full Text
Current ownership dogma has had pernicious consequences for fledgling democracies from Bosnia to Iraq to East Timor. Ownership advocates insist that democracy will only take root when local stakeholders (not outside actors) make and implement decisions. But ritualistic application of this theory imposes severe costs. Ownership doctrine, this paper sets out, has three core errors. First, it ignores the fact that some societies are unable to take ownership of their affairs, hence the need for dispassionate outsiders to occasionally assert their authority. Second, ownership doctrine asserts that meddlesome outsiders are the bane of young democracies or transition countries. Yet, ample evidence exists to challenge this view. Third, ownership doctrine substitutes ownership per se, rather than responsible behavior by local institutions and actors, as the over-arching goal. Encouraging disputants (or even non-disputants) to take the leading role in managing their country and their relationships is healthy; permitting them to do so in a way that aggravates tensions and subjects populations to risk is irresponsible. This paper argues for striking the balance between inculcating dependency by assuming too much authority and permitting chaos to reign by indulging prematurely in local ownership.
A popular book came out before the last World Cup tournament with the catchy title How Soccer Explains the World.1 The blurb claims that "this is an eye-opening chronicle of how a beautiful sport and its fanatical followers can highlight the fault lines of a society." It happened too late to be included in the book, but on 13 June 2006, right after a World Cup match between Brazil and Croatia, Croats in the Herzegovinian town of Mostar mounted a noisy demonstration in support of their footballing Croatian brethren. The town's Muslims, mostly concentrated across the Neretva river that divides the town, responded with taunting support for the victorious Brazilians. More than a dozen years after fighting had ended between Croats and Muslims the two sides clashed once again, producing numerous casualties- among them the flagging prospects for unification of the town.
As the title of the book suggests, the Mostar football clash was more telling than it would appear. In much of the world (Africa, for instance), ethno-political differences were shelved during the World Cup. Rival African states without a team in the Cup...