Last week I wrote about the efforts by some countries -- Russia and China in particular -- to push for an international regulatory regime for the Internet. The issue has come to a head because of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), which started on December 3 and is set to end tomorrow (Friday). The conference was supposed to draw up a new international treaty on telecommunications, but the United States, the countries of the European Union, and others who favor an open internet free from state control opposed inlcuding any mention of the Internet, which, they feared, would essentially give a pass to repressive governments that would use the regulations as an excuse to block objectionable content. On Wednesday night the conference erupted in controversy when the chairman attempted -- by questionable means -- to include an Internet resolution into the text of the treaty. That resolution was then approved by a majority of the conference participants.

James A. Robinson explains why Colombia's remarkable degree of political stability is not all that it's cracked up to be.

Malik Al-Abdeh wonders whether the creation of a new umbrella group for the Syrian opposition group will actually help to bring down the Assad regime.

Mohamed El Dahshan argues that the current government ban on pornography in Egypt threatens freedom of expression.

Larry Jagan analyzes the dynamics within the Burmese leadership and explains why fragmentation of the ruling party would be a disaster for the country.

Christian Caryl explores the comparison between two civil war presidents, Bashar al-Assad and Abraham Lincoln.

Besar Likmeta profiles Ina Rama, Albania's first female general prosecutor and valiant hero in the fight against sleaze.

Jackee Batanda reports on the increasing demoralization of a Ugandan public battered by new revelations of corruption in high places.

And here are this week's recommended reads:

Thomas Carothers and and Nathan J. Brown explain the real danger for democracy in Egypt.  

Katrin Verclas and Lina Srivastava wonder why a new list of democracy promotion heavyweights is bereft of women.

In a Guardian interview with Colin Poulton, the SOAS research fellow makes the case that the establishment of democratic institutions in developing countries can be detrimental to the rural poor.

A new RAND report assesses the nation-building challenges in post-Qaddafi Libya.

A new report on Burma from the International Crisis Group, Storm Clouds on the Horizon, shows how continuing sectarian conflict is casting a shadow over the reform process. Writing in The Independent, Emanuel Stoakes stresses the need for President Obama to acknowledge the issue during his upcoming trip to Burma.

In an analysis for the Middle East Research and Information Project, Pete Moore explains why -- despite the recent turmoil there -- Jordan is unlikely to experience its own version of the Arab Spring.

Sarah Kendzior argues that there are good reasons for holding policy forums in authoritarian countries.

Alina Rocha Menocal takes issue with the notion that "building institutions" is the best formula for promoting development.

And finally, Evelyn Lamb, writing in Scientific American, explains the background of the Gini coefficient -- and why it's not like the Kardashians

M. Steven Fish and Katherine E. Michel explain why Tunisia is taking the right approach to establishing democractic institutions.

Anne Applebaum explores the motivations for people to support authoritarian regimes.  

Dalibor Rohac argues that religion isn't necessarily the key to understanding the success of Islamist parties in the MENA region.

Endy Bayuni explains the tensions underlying recent violence among Indonesian migrants.

Peter Passell introduces the Legatum Institute's 2012 Prosperity Index.

Mohamed El Dahshan mourns the recent follies of the Egyptian military.

Jackee Batanda reports on the corruption scandal that has soured Uganda's relations with foreign aid donors.   

And now for this week's recommended reads: 

David Rieff attacks the assumptions behind America's democracy promotion agenda.

The Arabist provides alternate sources of English versions of the new Egyptian draft consitution -- with a bit of arch commentary along the way.

Amrit Dhillon criticizes the Indian government's restrictions on morphine for the poor.

At The Monkey Cage, Joshua Tucker offers a handy overview of Ukraine's parliamentary elections and what they tell us about the Ukraine's continued drift toward authoritarianism.

Writing for The Irrawaddy, Burmese journalist Aung Zaw explains why the resurgence of ethnic conflict in northwestern Burma bodes ill for the next phase of reforms.

At Jadaliyya, Basma Guthrie and Fida Adely explain why the Jordanian government is tightening the screws on the domestic media.

Foreign Policy's own Marc Lynch writes on the burgeoning dissatisfaction in Kuwait.

Writing for OpenDemocracy.net, Paul Rogers argues that western intervention in Mali would be a gift to Al Qaeda.

Democracy Digest offers a useful situation report on the state of democratic institutions in Tunisia.

[The photo above shows Cubans lining up to receive government coal rations in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.]

I read with trepidation in the Ugandan newspaper The Observer that the police are looking to monitor conversations on social media, which they blame for causing the uprisings in North Africa last year.

From my observation of democracies around the world, I'm worried that the risk of a slide into authoritarian rule in South Africa over the next several years is rising and substantial.

This pessimistic view emerges from an unconventional understanding of what makes democracies survive or fail. For the past couple of decades, American scholarship on this subject has emphasized popular legitimacy and the habituation of elites to democratic norms and procedures as the means by which democracy solidifies. In this view of the world, the passage of time without failure is considered a useful indicator of consolidation, because time roughly measures the amount of habituation that's taken place. If that's right, then the 18-year run of South Africa's post-apartheid democracy bodes well for its ability to survive shocks that would break younger regimes.

There's a revolt in the making in Sudan. (You can track it on Twitter at #SudanRevolts, and take a look here and here for background.)

You'd think it would catch the world's attention. The revolt is being led by an educated, young, polyglot class of people attempting to spread the message in half a dozen languages. Media-savvy bloggers and activists are being arrested; internet campaigns to free them are launched every day (in Arabic and English). Foreign journalists are being detained and deported. The protestors are confronting a military-religious dictatorship with demands for a civil state and social and economic justice. And, unlike some of the other worst offenders in Africa, the ruling regime is at least somewhat familiar to the western public thanks to coverage of the atrocities in Darfur and South Sudan (not to mention the involvement of George Clooney and company and the International Criminal Court's first arrest warrant -- as yet futile -- for an acting head of state).

In March, Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, South Sudan's President Salva Kiir, and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi troweled dollops of concrete onto a barren patch of land on the picturesque island of Lamu, Kenya, where a future seaport will lie. The Lamu Port-Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport Corridor (LAPSSET), a $23-billion undertaking that will connect Kenya's coastal Lamu region to South Sudan and Ethiopia with oil pipelines, railways, and super highways, is one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Africa to date. According to President Kibaki, LAPSSET "will stimulate the growth of regional economies through promotion of trade and other productive activities." He predicted that the project will boost employment and contribute to better prospects for some 167 million people in the surrounding region.

"Smile before you hit" suddenly seems like perfectly good advice for men in uniform who, in Indonesia, still think they can get away with abusing their powers. These days, in a world increasingly dominated by social media, there is a chance that you will be caught on camera, and when that happens, you might as well make sure that you look good.

Last week a young man was attacked by an army captain on a busy Jakarta road. The officer thrashed his victim on the head with a baton while wielding a pistol in his other hand. The fight apparently started after their vehicles swiped one another during afternoon rush-hour traffic. The soldier was in civilian clothes, but what gave him away was not his car's army license plate or his buzz cut, but the arrogant display of power.

The whole thing was recorded in a two-minute video that went viral on YouTube last week. The video prompted a chorus of anger expressed through all forms of social media. The spontaneous public outcry indicated that this was not an isolated incident of abuse of power by the nation's security apparatus.

In "Pictures at a Revolution," Luke Allnutt explores how visualizations of social media data can help to track the dynamics of social upheaval.

Oliver Kaplan and Michael Albertus argue that land reform holds the key to drying out the drug trade in Latin America.

In his weekly column, Christian Caryl wonders whether the planners of NATO intervention in Libya paid sufficient attention to the possible side-effects of their actions.