Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Net — Democratic Panacea Or Autocratic Tool?

Posted by Soulskill on from the or-tubular-googocracy dept.

Alex writes "On April 6, 10,000 protesters organized in Moldova against the nation's Communist leadership by utilizing new media like Twitter and Facebook, demonstrating the ever-increasing potential of the Internet as a democratic and liberating tool. But in the current Boston Review, Evgeny Morozov critiques the view that the internet will inevitably democratize autocratic regimes like China, Russia and Iran. He argues that the Net's democratic effects are not inherent, and that autocratic regimes have been successful in controlling electronic media to disseminate their ideology. Will the net ultimately spread American democracy, or just American entertainment?"

48 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. How about other democracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.

    1. Re:How about other democracies? by skrolle2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish I could moderate the article "-1 flamebait". A better term is "Western Liberal Democracy", that's all the good things that we all agree on, and yet isn't exclusive to a single country.

    2. Re:How about other democracies? by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like Elbonia?

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:How about other democracies? by skrolle2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=western+liberal+democracy

    4. Re:How about other democracies? by Chemicalscum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like Ghandi said about western civilization so too would American democracy be be a good thing.

    5. Re:How about other democracies? by skrolle2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure we all "agree" nor and I sure who "we" are.

      The "we" would be the people who live in these democracies, and I think we all agree on which countries are such a democracy and which aren't.

      The "western liberal" in democracy is pretty much what seems to be taking rights away and making things less free either directly or indirectly. If you think everyone agrees to that, your crazy.

      Nice strawman. Yes, if you look at it from the very narrow perspective of the last seven years, and only in a certain north-american country, then yes, you could get that impression. I was kinda aiming for the larger picture, liberal democracies have been going strong for about 200 years now, and we are richer, happier, and much, much better off than the people living in countries that are dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies or socialist republics. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it sure as hell is the best we've seen so far.

    6. Re:How about other democracies? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.

      Indeed you do, and the GP was a bit insensitive in that regard, and it's not like the U.S. didn't crib a lot of our legal system from the British and others.

      However, the current lingua franca for a good part of the industrialized world is English. Both the British Empire followed by American economic hegemony made a working knowledge of English a requirement for many people. That's been the case all throughout history, however: the dominant economic power's primary language is learned by others because they wish to do business with it.

      Now, my understanding is that China currently has more people learning American English than there are people actually in the United States. If that's literally true, China may have a hard time keeping itself culturally and politically intact. Up 'til now, there was a considerable language barrier that existed between China and the rest of the world. Once a significant number of Chinese speak English, China may find it hard to keep all those evil Western ideals away from their people. Besides, many of their people have had a taste of what industry can do for them .. and to them for that matter.

      The Great Firewall can only do so much. People can still talk, and since they wish to become a global superpower they're going to have to let them talk to people from other countries. In fact, they are planning for that. Sooner or later, this will have some effect: what that will be I can't say, but any way you slice it, China will never be the same again.

      Still, the way things are going, we may all be studying Mandarin just to keep up.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:How about other democracies? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not really Western either. The richest countries in Asia - Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are democracies and likely to stay that way. Places like Malaysia and the Philipines are more likely to end up democracies than anything else. Actually most of Asia, apart from China and its neighbours are counted as free or partly free according to Freedom House

      http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09_AsiaPacific.pdf

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:How about other democracies? by Kjellander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish I could moderate the article "-1 flamebait". A better term is "Western Liberal Democracy", that's all the good things that we all agree on, and yet isn't exclusive to a single country.

      Why not call it French Democracy? Theirs is the model for the American one at least.

    9. Re:How about other democracies? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The "we" would be the people who live in these democracies, and I think we all agree on which countries are such a democracy and which aren't.

      Which ones are they then? Is it the surveillance country without free speech that the UK has turned into? Or the my economy collapsed 20 years ago and there is unemployment through the roof which is so bad that there are riots in the street several times a year France? Please tell me where this liberal democracy has done more then just lip service. Sure, you have individual rights, but can you actually say that anyone is free? Or more free then they were 20 years ago?

      Nice strawman. Yes, if you look at it from the very narrow perspective of the last seven years, and only in a certain north-american country, then yes, you could get that impression. I was kinda aiming for the larger picture, liberal democracies have been going strong for about 200 years now, and we are richer, happier, and much, much better off than the people living in countries that are dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies or socialist republics. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it sure as hell is the best we've seen so far.

      Nice strawman indeed. If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. The last seven years has nothing on what I said and the north American country your referring to wasn't even on the radar. Perhaps you should look into what your actually saying a little more but life isn't what you think it is.

    10. Re:How about other democracies? by gringofrijolero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...how do you explain the psychopaths who currently wield power...

      Because when we were children our parents would beat us if they caught us playing with ourselves..

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    11. Re:How about other democracies? by Jens+Egon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.

      The fact is that the rest of us have our democracies based either on the French Republic + 200 years of bug fixes, or on English parliamentarianism[1] + the very same byg fixes

      The USA is a pre-alpha fork of the same system. And Since the USA does not fix bugs[2], no-one else wants to adapt that fork.

      [1] Nice long word, isn't it.

      [2] It's better than anything that went before so why fix it?

  2. Difference: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Moldova, the web (Twitter, etc.) was outside the government's control, hence the citizens control the net. In China, Russia and Iran the net is well inside the government's control. Hence the net (and the government behind it) controls the citizens.

    This is why the copyright debate is so important. Who gives a s**t about Mickey Mouse and who watches of doesn't watch him? The real game is who controls what gets seen, heard and written over the Internet. Copyright is just the government's cover and the RIAA-government relationship is a convenient symbiosis.

  3. This is so arrogant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe it.

    You had and have Actors as heads of state, only two parties one can vote for, tolerate torture, infiltrate other countries ...

    WTF is democratic about that. Please go away and do not spread ANYTHING in the world, thank you.

    1. Re:This is so arrogant by Svippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The American system may be less democratic than common European systems, as well as Canada's.

      However, and most importantly, the American system is more fair than the European system.

      In many European countries, small parties can often sit in a centre political position and change the outcome of who becomes Prime Minister, and what parties are going to rule the country for the next 3-4 years or so.

      You think a party representing 4% of a nation's people should have the last say in who becomes Prime Minister? Do you think that's fair?

      The American system's quirks comes from the fact that it is the world's first modern democracy, some things are bound to change.

      --
      Clicked pie.
    2. Re:This is so arrogant by Svippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You would be wrong, on both accounts. A party representing 4% of the people can sit in the exact centre of politics, and all the other major parties may already have decided whom they are going to appoint for Prime Minister, and the only votes remaining to win the majority to win the Prime Minister position for each side of the spectrum lies with this small party.

      That is the unfairness of actual democracy. Trust me, it has happened before here.

      Just because everyone couldn't vote, it was still a democracy, albeit not a perfect one. But there is always room for perfection. But you should not forget that the American democracy has inspired several democracies around the world, which may be different in spirit than the American, but the principle is basically the same.

      --
      Clicked pie.
    3. Re:This is so arrogant by Vanders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The American system's quirks comes from the fact that it is the world's first modern democracy

      That simply depends on how you define "modern" and "democracy". Great Britain had a functional democracy long before the United States of America.

      --
      Syllable : It's an Operating System
    4. Re:This is so arrogant by Svippy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same democracy that granted the colonies taxation without representation? It might have been functioning, but apparently not very well.

      But deep down, the United States of America is a republic rather than a democracy. Its federal levels shows exactly this. Notice how citizens do not vote directly for president?

      Sure, that seems unfair, and at worst, 50% of a state's votes can be disregarded because the other half won, and winner takes all. But the electoral college is a method of protecting state's rights. If not, then all candidates should do was campaign in New York and California. I mean, the USA could easily disregard the states down to region level, but then they really won't be the USA any more.

      I am no way saying that American democracy is perfect, but the most reason why two parties are the only actual choices is because of voters being stupid and not trying to vote for third parties, I mean, for real, voting for them.

      But I will take back that America was the first modern democracy, but it was one of the first. And it is probably the only one with the formula the American system uses.

      --
      Clicked pie.
    5. Re:This is so arrogant by laederkeps · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but then you would not be able to eat at *our* McDonalds.

      Really? Thanks!

      Or smoke *our* fine cigarettes.

      No problem.

      And you would have to stop pirating all of our movies. The price is just to steep for you.

      Did that a long time ago.


      Now that that's all straightened out, will your country please stop meddling in my country's affairs?

    6. Re:This is so arrogant by Svippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps, but like with any system, someone will always be there to abuse it. One such abuse in this 4% example would be each side "bribing" their way to the these crucial votes.

      Which means, that these 4% will have a lot more say in politics than represents 4% of the people, because they know they have to be satisfied, otherwise they may point to the opposition for the government.

      In Denmark, for instance, the Danish People's Party (Dansk Folkeparti) controls about 22 seats in the parliament, they are important for the two governing parties to stay in power, however, this also mean, that despite representing about 15% in the population, they have a large say in what laws get through and how they are written.

      --
      Clicked pie.
    7. Re:This is so arrogant by durrr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just like American democracy in basic principle is the same as the one of classic Athens.

      Only that it's scaled to include a whole bloody continent instead of a city state, and involves some 300 million people, a good 1000 times more than the original and requiring a whole deal less input from the actual people that are supposed to decide how things work.

      As this is slashdot people should be quite well aware of the fact that some systems scale like complete shit. Unfortunately, somehow political systems are decoupled from the normal process of carefull design, prototyping and improvement and innovation that normally apply when you're doing, well, everything else, no matter how trivial.

    8. Re:This is so arrogant by Vanders · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same democracy that granted the colonies taxation without representation?

      Yes, in the same way you would no doubt consider the United States of America a democracy even though it denied suffrage to women until the 1920's and practices racial segregation well into the 1960's.

      --
      Syllable : It's an Operating System
    9. Re:This is so arrogant by Quothz · · Score: 2, Informative

      You had and have Actors as heads of state,

      Only one actor, singular and lower-case. Reagan had a degree in economics and a fairly long political career; it's not like he stepped right off the silver screen into the White House.

      only two parties one can vote for,

      Not entirely accurate, although the two major parties hold a strong dominance. Generally, two parties have been dominant in the past, but not always the same two. We've elected one President with no party at all. We currently have two US Senators and a fair few US Reps who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. At the state level, it gets a lot more mixed.

      It would be nice if we could loosen the hold the Big Two have over politics, tho'. I think Ross Perot got the closest in my lifetime to breaking that hold - pity he was stark, raving mad.

      tolerate torture,

      Every nation "tolerates" torture that does not take actions against nations who torture. The US does not torture, although admittedly Bush broke that policy for a while (both by allowing waterboarding and transferring prisoners to nations who do full-blown torture). You'll notice that the majority of Americans were angry about that, while some other nations defended him.

      infiltrate other countries ...

      Every nation not in the third world (and some that are) engages in espionage. Whatever country you're from does, too.

  4. Re:Russia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Though not from Russia, I travel there several times a year for fieldwork, from Saint Petersburg to western Siberia. Yes, the country can be fairly described autocratic. Voices for reform are regularly beaten under the unders of Kremlin-appointed governors, the late Soviet-era practice of putting dissidents in psychiatric hospitals has resumed, the national media is almost entirely under the control of Putin. Then there have been the killings of the greatest critics of Putin, such as Anna Politkovskaya. Every time I go there, the situation seems ever worse than before.

  5. The witch hunters are your answer. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The net has the potential to be a near indestructible tool for democracy and free exchange of information if, and only if, full anonymity were possible.

    And that is why this aspect of the net is seen as the ultimate danger to authoritarians, and so no effort is to be spared to destroy any attempts at fully anonymous net. And so enter the "save the children" crusaders and witch-hunters, who somehow, strangely, rather then focus on abused children seem to focus on thought crimes which, also incidentally, require wholesale removal of anonymity from the net to "stop" ...

    Combine this with efforts at whipping up frothing-at-the-snout frenzy and moral panic amongst the general population and the author of the article is right: the net will slowly but surely become the tool of power holders.

    Of course there are all sorts of other excuses (like libel etc) why the net has to become non-anonymous, all of them bogus in light of what is being lost versus what is being gained. But then again that is the point, as the "cost" to the ruling elites everywhere is frightening.

    1. Re:The witch hunters are your answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the "cost" to the ruling elites everywhere is frightening.

      I agree but there's a difference between democracy and mob rule. If the days of the state being able to controlling the news media are over, what are the drooling masses going to have knee-jerk emotional reactions to now? I fear that the internet may lead to lone wolf behaivour in the cyber realms.

  6. American? by ignavus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps they will import Australian democracy - after all, even America copied our practice of voting by secret ballot.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  7. Get Over It by okmijnuhb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America must get over the ideology of spreading American democracy around the world. While it's wonderful as a system, imposing it on other nations is often counterproductive, and nary worth the American blood and treasure used to achieve it.

    1. Re:Get Over It by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      America must get over the ideology of spreading American democracy around the world. While it's wonderful as a system

      As a citizen of a country that uses parliamentary proportional representation and has strong protections for workers and limitations on what companies can and cannot do in order to try to force their customers/employees to obey, I have to respectfully disagree.

  8. Is the US realy a democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rigged voting machines, lying government, involved in wars all over the globe under false pretense, constant and flagrant erosion of our rights yada yada yada thank god for america.

  9. America is a Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought it was a Corporatocracy, based on the ample evidence that just about everyone in Washington is bought by one corporation or the other with campaign donations and backroom deals.

    I know Americans get to vote every now and then, but a substantial portion of the results are suitably processed by unverifiable digital "voting systems" to ensure that the people won't accidentally vote wrong. Not that it matters much as both US parties are essentially the same.

  10. American Democracy by marx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America has just spent the last 5 years torturing people and invading a country against international law with American soldiers massacring its population with impunity. It's a terrible role model for democracy.

    1. Re:American Democracy by wumingzi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America has just spent the last 5 years torturing people and invading a country against international law with American soldiers massacring its population with impunity. It's a terrible role model for democracy.

      There are several comments in this thread that would be good as a jumping-off point for the role of the Net in preventing authoritarian tendencies. Yours seemed good. Congratulations!

      Let's look at a few things:

      1) The US has, by law if not necessarily by practice, one of the freest flows of information in the world. There is no prior restraint (q.v. UK, Canada), there are no laws restricting hate speech (q.v. Germany), libel cases are notoriously hard to prosecute (lots of places), and judges have historically given a lot of protection to people who bring forth government "secrets" which expose wrongdoing by members of the government.

      2) While I won't say there was no vote fraud anywhere, because I don't believe that, the democratic processes here work pretty well on the whole. Let's say that 99% of the voters in the US were able to get to the polls and voted for the candidate of their choice. The US is not Zimbabwe.

      3) What was going on vis a vis torture, detentions, illegal declarations of war, etc. was not some big secret that you had to get from samizdat sold in a back alley. Pick up a major newspaper, tune into NPR, or even watch CNN, and what the Bush administration was doing was being lovingly documented, even if there was a lot more deference to state power than the situation deserved. And, of course, any one of a number of bloggers and alternative news sources dug in to their offenses with relish.

      So, with all that access to information, Mr. Bush and his enablers won two Presidential elections and three (arguably more if you go back to 1994) congressional elections. While a lot of heat is made of potential vote fraud in Ohio and Florida, the fact is that most states were not very close. (FWIW Bush lost my state by 5% the first time and 7% the second time).

      The question this poses is, if so much chicanery can be done in plain sight, with the approval of we the people in a society with some of the best access to information on the planet, what difference can the Internet make in a country without this sort of infrastructure? I would argue that if you control the primary sources of information, what leaks out around it does not make much difference. This is unfortunately a human and not a technical problem.

  11. Why American Democracy? by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is American the best kind of Democracy we can come up with? I'd at least hope for one where lobbying isn't a full time job, where how much money you doesn't matter when running for office, and where every vote counts. Not one where 51% is just as good as 100% (state level).

    --
    We are all God's parents.
    1. Re:Why American Democracy? by skrolle2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine trying to get a simple majority in a country with 6 or 7 parties. You would never get anything done.

      If all seven parties disagree on everything, then no. In most places with political systems like this, that is not the case. You have coalitions of parties where they agree to support each other on everything they agree on, and compromise on the things they don't. It works really well most of the time. Sometimes coalitions break and new ones form, or you have a re-election, but it's not like a system with a lot of political parties gets less done than a system with only two.

  12. French did this for years.. by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just to hype twitter.
    The problem is the security forces are all over twitter, facebook.
    Read up on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
    They where using 'online' to co ordinate national strikes back in the 1980's.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Re:Russia? by papabob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, the most influential (and richest) industries of the country are controlled by families who had relations with Putin or KGB/army in the 90s. Putin designed his Deputy Prime Minister to become the presidential candidate , Putin left the presidence to become Prime Minister, the former Putin's Prime Minister now is Deputy Prime Minister...

    Yes, it sounds like an autocracy.

  14. American democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ha! You mean the one we can witness in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment?

    The Bush administration's rendition (torture) policy, and Obama's approval and continuation of it? The unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens? Attack wars on sovereign nations for oil and political dominance? The notion of the executive branch being untouchable by any law?

    Wow, I cerainly hope the net is not about spreading that ideology.

  15. Sure, American "Democracy" by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it that the US is a major target of Amnesty International again? What about your warrentless wire-tapping? Exceedingly low voter turn out. Etc, etc, etc.

    Seriously, if you want to spread democracy, then the first step would be to actually have one.

  16. Is Democracy possible? by MikeOtl67of · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you think democracy has ever been applied? If the Web was left uncontrolled do you think that it would grow democratically or maybe crowds always glue into tribes who delegate to a leader? Can that be called democracy? Are examples like Wikipedia or even Slashdot good products of democracy?

  17. Re:Russia? by Nephrite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can consider it autocratic. Presidential and parlamentary elections are faked on regular basis, governors are installed from Kremlin (elections were abolished not so long ago), courts are funded from city budgets and judges are installed by the president and the parliament majority, so called "United Russia" has Putin as the leader. So there is no de facto separation of powers, the president and prime minister decide.
    Oh, and journalists and bloggers are killed and imprisoned for their opinions. We also have the infamous "282 article" in criminal codex which de facto forbids any criticism of state. So yes, Russia may be considered autocratic if not "Soviet" again :-)

  18. What? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Printing Press - Democratic Panacea Or Autocratic Tool?

    How about disruptive technology and useful tool? How it is used depends on the people, not the technology.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  19. American 'democracy' by dudeeh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have always maintained that an essentially two-party system is NOT a democracy. You can see the results in the US, in England, in France to a degree... Political systems like the one in Belgium are more like a democracy, where there are a whole lot of independent parties and new ones can spring up at any time. (a party that is now like two years old already has about 15% of the votes here).

    The flipside of course is that it takes longer to get things done, but then again, that is the price you pay for democracy. Either you go with a dictator who can solely decide everything, meaning it takes but a snap decision to change policies, or you go to the other end of the spectrum, a true democracy, where every possible opinion has to be weighed in and a satisfactory conclusion has to be reached. America leans much more towards the dictator regime then the democratic one, whilst most of Europe's political systems lean towards the democratic side.

    1. Re:American 'democracy' by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes feel free to spout off any nonsense you feel like.

      The US has a long history of third parties springing up, or independents running for election. A recent example example is Ross Perot who won 19% of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. In 2000 it was the votes won by the Green Party (Ralph Nader) that were the difference between Bush or Gore winning.

      The fact is that it isn't just two people on the ballot. The number is more usually 10 or so in a presidential election. You are free to vote for any one of them.

      And that isn't counting the primary system where Americans vote for and choose who will run for the party in the upcoming elections. How do you think that Obama became president? By winning voters during the primary run. Often dozens of candidates are available to choose from across the various parties.

      And at the local level it is even more pronounced. I've had neighbors get fed up with the current local officials, say on the school board and just up and run on their own. And get elected.

      Also let's be clear about what democracy really is. I grew up in a town that is run as an Athenian style democracy where voters in the town voted on EVERY issue.

      Also let us know when in Europe a person of mixed race like Obama is elected President of a MAJOR state like France or Germany. That is when you;ll know you have a strong, open democratic process.

  20. Some oxymorons.. by arcade · · Score: 2, Funny

    Military intelligence
    Religious tolerance
    Business Ethics .. and today:

    American democracy

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  21. Re: indestructible tools for democracy by macraig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A gun is also an indestructible tool for democracy... or an indestructible tool for totalitarianism. The American founding fathers used them to (try to) create democracy, but the British of the time also used them to try to prevent it. Tools are, by definition, agnostic to the human "causes" to which they are applied.

    Democracy doesn't require the sort of anonymity you're promoting. No one else in human history has ever enjoyed or needed it for the sake of democracy. The founding fathers didn't need it. The American Constitution, contrary to popular misunderstanding, does not enshrine it; it is not a basic "right".

    Actually, what is enshrined in our democratic system is quite the reverse: the right to be able to confront one's accuser. That is one of the fundamental tenets of our jurisdprudent system.

    You can't have it both ways, but you and other misguided people will no doubt keep trying, for selfish reasons.

  22. -1, Clueless by Das+Auge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or you could try to understand that Slashdot is a US-centric website and tends to tell it from an American perspective.

    Everything on the web doesn't need to be done from a perspective that you find acceptable.

  23. Re:Russia? by ameline · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a preamble, I'm married to a Russian -- have traveled there a number of times -- so I know just enough to be misinformed :-)

    I'll add to what you write that Putin also appears to enjoy the support of a significant majority of Russians -- including most of the Russians I know (both there and here in Canada).

    (I just know someone is going to godwin this thread -- trains running on time etc... :-) )

    --
    Ian Ameline